Seriously considering a handgun...

[yellow]

I live in the US. Handguns are cheap and plentiful.
For as long as I can rememeber I have been fascinated by firearms. Yes, I was that little boy that drew guns on everything.
As if Godzilla really needs guns on his head, arms, and tail. :rolleyes:
But I've never owned any firearms. I've shot some handguns, some assault weapons, and a shotgun a few times, but have never actually owned a firearm of any type. Sounds strange for someone who knows quite a bit about them. But there it is. I freely admit, I really liked shooting. It's quite challenging and of course has a hint of danger. But the obvious concerns kept me away from purchasing any. Now for some reason.. my thoughts have changed and I am seriously considering purchasing a handgun. There's been no "event" that caused me to change my mind. I just.. changed my mind. Ostensibly, it's for home protection, but I'm more inclined to want to fire it at a range.
We have no kids, so safety concerns of that sort is not an issue.

So, do you own a handgun*? Why or why not?
Was your mind changed one way or the other about ownership? Why?

There's certainly a lot to weigh here and I'd like to hear as much feedback as possible.

Thanks.






*: Handguns only please.
I understand that it's good protection when hunting in areas with large, dangerous animals (bears, pumas, boars, iPhone Forum Users, etc), but let's face it. No one is going out to hunt primarily with a handgun.

[Blue Velvet]

No one is going out to hunt primarily with a handgun.

Unless you spend some time in the iPhone forums. ;)

[yellow]

Unless you spend some time in the iPhone forums. ;)

LOL! OK, exception noted. :)

[iShater]

A friend of mine was going to get one after the chaos he saw in New Orleans and the collapse of law and order. But he has kids now and AFAIK he went against it.

Another friend of mine moved in to a very bad neighborhood when we moved to NC, and he didn't realize how bad it was until someone tried to force their way into his home. He did get one (and a shotgun). They have no kids, so they didn't have that concern.

If it is legal, and you learn how to use it, and you don't have children coming around where they can hurt themselves, then it might be a bad idea.

Then again, what do I know. :D

[Thanatoast]

The only reason I'd consider one would be to protect myself from the government...

[yellow]

Another friend of mine moved in to a very bad neighborhood when we moved to NC, and he didn't realize how bad it was until someone tried to force their way into his home.

Heh. Durham or Charlotte?

[zioxide]

Go for it.

Just make sure you keep it locked in a gun safe or whatever when you're not using it.

[iShater]

Heh. Durham or Charlotte?

I think Charlotte. It was supposed to be a "rebounding" neighborhood, but turned out it had a LONG way to go still. They moved out, but last time I spoke to him they were still trying to unload the house.

[yellow]

Yeah, both cities are on either end of the prime conduit through NC from Atlanta (I-85) heading north to DC. Consequently & sadly there are a lot of drug & crime problems in both places.

[LumbermanSVO]

I've been around long guns all my life so there is no mystery to them. I wasn't until I was a late teen that I fired my first handgun, I don't like them as much as long guns.

I do want one for the home though. The problem is that my nephew has never been around guns before and he lives in the same house. I've decided that until my sister teaches him about real guns that I will avoid buying one.

I would also like one in my truck for protection but there are rules against that, plus many customers clearly prohibit weapons on their property.

[és:]

I vehemently object to handgun ownership.

[dukebound85]

im planning on getting my ccw in the near future

i believe gun ownership is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and this applies to handguns as well in my opinion

i honestly dont understand those
1)that dont believe in having guns
2)have never fired a weapon at all
3)object to those that see the importance


i use my handgun currently for range practice
also use my rifles for same purpose

[EricNau]

While I don't particularly object to handgun ownership (unless there are kids in the house), your timing is quite coincidental with this news story I just read: Surprising fact: Half of gun deaths are suicides (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCxcKGSQ7r7ORZNySqR3F0kP5rOgD91KMM180). ...An interesting article, with pretty surprising facts, in my opinion. That said, in no way am I trying to discourage you from purchasing a gun, just encouraging you to be an informed and conscious gun owner.

If you want one, go ahead and buy one. Just be careful. :)

[Macky-Mac]

im planning on getting my ccw in the near future

i believe gun ownership is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and this applies to handguns as well in my opinion....

so why do you believe it's so extremely important?

[yellow]

I sorely wish the (as of now) overwhelming majority of those who voted "I vehemently object to handgun ownership." would state why.
Silent majorities don't work so well for me.

[dukebound85]

so why do you believe it's so extremely important?

1) its a right and should be exercised. just like the right to vote and should be exercised
2) if a situation arose which you needed to use a firearm, handgun or not, it is well worth it to be able to use it and use it confidently
3) knowledge on the proper use of firearms is key. id much rather have someone trained in the use as well as mindset over someone who has never touched a weapon before who would be more apt to not think clear in a situation (if forced to use a weapon)
4) you never know what the future holds to put it simply

these are just some of my thoughts on the matter

[Blue Velvet]

I've fired weapons before, rifles on ranges and in the countryside in New Zealand. And I'm still against the idea of handguns in the hands of the general populace... but that's my opinion, and I've never lived in the US so I'm just accustomed to the laws of the countries I've grown up in.

However, the idea that a handgun is going to protect anyone against the government is hilarious. If they're after you, for god knows whatever reason, I think you'll need a hell of a lot more than a handgun.

I think if people are permitted by law to possess guns and if someone genuinely asks about what gun they should get, how to look after it etc. then I believe people should respect that and try to engage in the conversation in a constructive way. It's not my kind of thing, but if it's legal where you live, then go for it with all the usual precautions etc. It would worry the crap out of me but I'm not the one being asked to keep it in my house or on my person.

[EricNau]

1) its a right and should be exercised. just like the right to vote and should be exercised
They're called rights because we have the option, not because we have to. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't be rights. ;)

[nbs2]

I'd like to get one eventually, but I know that my wife and I are split on the issue of having one, especially with a tyke in the house. Also, I know how accurate I am with a rifle, and I know how accurate I am not with a handgun (at least from a good distance).

Even if the spousal differences are resolved, I'll likely refrain until I feel more qualified.

In the interest of disclosure, I voted Other, as I most closely align with the "I would like one" group, but know my skills are not where I want them to be.

[és:]

1) its a right and should be exercised. just like the right to vote and should be exercised

"Just like". It's nothing like. Even then, who are you to say that someone should excessive their right to vote. It's their right to vote if they want to.

We have rights to do all kinds of things, it doesn't mean we should do them. You're more than welcome to, it's your right. It's other people's right not to.

[dukebound85]

I've fired weapons before, rifles on ranges and in the countryside in New Zealand. And I'm still against the idea of handguns in the hands of the general populace... but that's my opinion, and I've never lived in the US so I'm just accustomed to the laws of the countries I've grown up in.

However, the idea that a handgun is going to protect anyone against the government is hilarious. If they're after you, for god knows whatever reason, I think you'll need a hell of a lot more than a handgun.

I think if people are permitted by law to possess guns and if someone genuinely asks about what gun they should get, how to look after it etc. then I believe people should respect that and try to engage in the conversation in a constructive way. It's not my kind of thing, but if it's legal where you live, then go for it with all the usual precautions etc. It would worry the crap out of me but I'm not the one being asked to keep it in my house or on my person.

i believe training in the use of weapons is more important than the weapon itself. same can be said with self defense. you will aprreciate having the skill if you ever NEED to use. would i hope to use it....not at all but having the confidence to use it when you need it would be worth it for me

"Just like". It's nothing like. Even then, who are you to say that someone should excessive their right to vote. It's their right to vote if they want to.

We have rights to do all kinds of things, it doesn't mean we should do them. You're more than welcome to, it's your right. It's other people's right not to.

i agree with what you say that its thier choice. would i prefer if they exercised it ...yeah but thats my opinion

just how i wish everyone took an active role in politics and let their voice be heard through voting. to not care about rights that are given to you is unfortunate in my opinion

i would also love to see everyone have training on weapons. its not practical in this day and age but it would ensure greater respect for weapons to the individuals who did purchase them

please tell me why you oppose handgun ownership?

[Dagless]

I live in a country where normal people don't carry guns so I don't find the need for one, so I'm against having one.
I don't know what I'd do if I lived in the US though. I don't want a gun, I don't want to "go for range practice" or whatever excuses they come up with. I'd get one and a crash course in how to use it and then lock it away until it needed using.

They're serious killing devices and should only ever be used in self defence if it's the last resort and not for showing off, for toying around with etc.

[glocke12]

I own several handguns.

I have ruger 22 for target practice and all around plinking

I have a 44 mag ruger redhawk that I got primarily to use for backpaking when I lived in the rockies...

a 44 LC "cowboy" gun that I have becasue Ive always wanted a cowboy gun.


I have a few others laying around, some are milsurp collectables that I got when I was more into collecting guns than I am now.

These days I rarely get to shoot them, so for the most part they are all locked in the safe. Someday soon Ill probably get around to selling most of them. Its expensive to shoot these days, and I rarely have the time anyway.

Let us know what you get.

[Blue Velvet]

i believe training in the use of weapons is more important than the weapon itself. same can be said with self defense. you will aprreciate having the skill if you ever NEED to use. would i hope to use it....not at all but having the confidence to use it when you need it would be worth it for me

Well, I live in the UK and if I went around carrying a handgun, I'd be looking at a prison sentence. Fortunately, guns here are still pretty rare; I don't like the idea of anyone just being able to lay their hands on one. There are too many idiots out there.

I've been attacked before. In all cases, a gun would not have helped unless I'd been carrying it, loaded. Anyway, each to their own.

[dukebound85]

Well, I live in the UK and if I went around carrying a handgun, I'd be looking at a prison sentence. Fortunately, guns here are still pretty rare; I don't like the idea of anyone just being able to lay their hands on one. There are too many idiots out there.

I've been attacked before. In all cases, a gun would not have helped unless I'd been carrying it, loaded. Anyway, each to their own.

does the uk not have a ccw type license?

yea i believe most times when you are attacked, knowing basic martial arts defense will help you out greater. but the call to use a handgun or not during a situation i feel is the best part that training can help you with imo

[Blue Velvet]

does the uk not have a ccw type license?

I seriously doubt that unless you're part of a diplomatic protection team or something similar... I wouldn't know. The average policeman or woman in the UK does not carry a gun either.

[synth3tik]

The second amendment has been so twisted and taken out of context. The first too.

[ucfgrad93]

I used to own 2 handguns, but got rid of them when my son was born.

[dmr727]

I like to target shoot. I don't own for protection purposes, and as such the guns are stored in a gun safe, completely unloaded. If I wanted to protect my home, I'd use a shotgun.

That said, I own:

Sig Saur P226R in .40
HK USP .40 Compact with an LEM trigger

My wife owns a Ruger .357 Revolver. She also uses the same model HK as above for work.

[és:]

i agree with what you say that its thier choice. would i prefer if they exercised it ...yeah but thats my opinion

I'd prefer nobody exercise their right to have one. That's my point.

just how i wish everyone took an active role in politics and let their voice be heard through voting.

I take an active role in politics. I make my voice heard through much more powerful means than a vote.

Not voting, or presenting a spoiled ballot can be just as powerful.

to not care about rights that are given to you is unfortunate in my opinion

This is where I get annoyed. ;)

I do care about might rights, that's why I'll never let my right not to vote or not to carry a deadly weapon be taken from me because others think I should do those things. I have a right to smoke, should I be doing that? I have a right to sit at home with a bottle of Johnny Walker Red and piss my life away, should I do that?

Just because we have a right to something, it doesn't mean we should be doing it if we don't believe in it.

i would also love to see everyone have training on weapons. its not practical in this day and age but it would ensure greater respect for weapons to the individuals who did purchase them

Having been in the Air Training Corps for 3 years when I was younger, I've fired many weapons and still have my RAF marksmanship certificate in the drawer. I have no more respect for weapons now than I did then.

please tell me why you oppose handgun ownership?

Because they are deadly weapons.

(This is where you say 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' and I reply 'yeah, but guns make killing people a **** load easier')

[mr.light]

After being on the wrong end of a gun while working night shift at a gas station as a kid, I am not a big fan of guns of any sort.:(

[MacNut]

Because they are deadly weapons.

(This is where you say 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' and I reply 'yeah, but guns make killing people a **** load easier')I would argue that cars are a much deadlier weapon than guns would ever be, and we are still allowed to drive them around. Point is a weapon is only as dangerous as the person behind it. If someone wanted to they could kill you with a butter knife.

[és:]

I would argue that cars are a much deadlier weapon than guns would ever be. And we are allowed to drive them around.

Ah, an even more idiotic argument than I expected. Well done you.

The difference is that a car's purpose is to transport people from A to B. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet and was designed with the purpose of killing.

Unless you ride your handgun to work, that is. In which case, I apologise.

[mkrishnan]

I like to target shoot. I don't own for protection purposes, and as such the guns are stored in a gun safe, completely unloaded.

I voted other (FWIW)... I don't have a problem with gun ownership for hobby (target or skeet shooting, hunting, etc), although I don't have a strong interest myself (if I target shot, I'd think I'd do it infrequently enough that I'd want to pay a professional to maintain my weapon). I'm moderately to strongly opposed to gun ownership for self protection, because I think too many things can go wrong when people who rarely use guns have them in their homes.

My preference is that guns for hobby be kept at minimum unloaded and safed as above (and with the ammunition either not in the house or locked separately), or preferably boarded at a gun club or shooting range.... Even in families were guns are kept in gun safes, I've had patients (kids) who had self-inflicted GSWs because some chain of events led to them getting unsupervised access to both gun and ammo in spite of safeguards....

Going along with that, if it is in your house, I feel you're obligated to (a) get training; (b) use it regularly so that you have adequate skill not to be a danger to innocents should you ever use it for real; (c) keep it well maintained, either yourself or via someone else; (d) make sure everyone who is old enough to use them who lives in the house is also trained, so that there's no cocktail of mystery and ignorance that will lead to an accidental discharge.

[dukebound85]

I seriously doubt that unless you're part of a diplomatic protection team or something similar... I wouldn't know. The average policeman or woman in the UK does not carry a gun either.

really? wow all the police here carry handguns



I do care about might rights, that's why I'll never let my right not to vote or not to carry a deadly weapon be taken from me because others think I should do those things. I have a right to smoke, should I be doing that? I have a right to sit at home with a bottle of Johnny Walker Red and piss my life away, should I do that?

well to be fair, smoking isnt a "right" per say. when i refer to rights, im referencing the constitution (which ironically doesnt give the right to vote explicitly but it is referenced that elected officials be chosen by the people and ways that you can not deny the right to vote)



Just because we have a right to something, it doesn't mean we should be doing it if we don't believe in it.

i see your point to an extent



Having been in the Air Training Corps for 3 years when I was younger, I've fired many weapons and still have my RAF marksmanship certificate in the drawer. I have no more respect for weapons now than I did then.


when i say respect, i mean respect for the capabilities and consequences of the weapon. not respect in the sense whether you like it or not


Because they are deadly weapons.

(This is where you say 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' and I reply 'yeah, but guns make killing people a **** load easier')

yea but so does smoking, drunk driving and so many other activities. point is that guns are dangeous only by the person that uses them. education and training would make this less dangerous (which by the way im all for)

if you have respect for the weapon and if people went to training, im willing to bet that gun related accidents would decrease

but then you may point out gangs and such but that problem is created by guns but rather society itself

I would argue that cars are a much deadlier weapon than guns would ever be, and we are still allowed to drive them around. Point is a weapon is only as dangerous as the person behind it. If someone wanted to they could kill you with a butter knife.

well said

Ah, an even more idiotic argument than I expected. Well done you.

The difference is that a car's purpose is to transport people from A to B. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet and was designed with the purpose of killing.

Unless you ride your handgun to work, that is. In which case, I apologise.

is killing not killing regardless of the means? i ask since each case is largly dependent on the individual is it not?

as i said earlier, i would rather have a gun and be trained in how to use it when and IF the time arose then need it and not be able to stay level headed. which would be the more dangerous? it would be the person using the gun that didnt know how to use it.

by no means am i EVER anticipating having to shoot people for self defense but to have the confidence and knowhow to use a weapon is priceless in my opinion.

[MacNut]

Ah, an even more idiotic argument than I expected. Well done you.

The difference is that a car's purpose is to transport people from A to B. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet and was designed with the purpose of killing.

Unless you ride your handgun to work, that is. In which case, I apologise.Your country decided that guns are bad and kill people so they outlawed them. But a lot of other things can kill you and they are perfectly legal. Cars, knives, fat foods all can kill you so why not ban them too. Just because you don't have guns are you safer from yourselves? Or does the government need to ban all things that can kill you.

[Dagless]

Your country decided that guns are bad and kill people so they outlawed them. But a lot of other things ca kill you and they are perfectly legal. Cars, knives, fat foods all can kill you so why not ban them too. Just because you don't have guns are you safer from yourselves? Or does the government need to ban all things that can kill you.

Come on now, that's a rather silly thing to say.

Of all the things you listed each has a use. Killing is just an unfortunate byproduct that can't be designed out of the item. An active gun serves 1 purpose; to make something living stop living. Cars? Transport. Knives? Cooking and cutting. Fatty foods? We need (certain) fats.

And actually MSG fats (the rubbish ones) aren't outlawed in the UK but theres a huge campaign about removing them from foods.

[és:]

well to be fair, smoking isnt a "right" per say.

It's a legal right, though...

yea but so does smoking

Now illegal in this country (and others) to smoke in public.

drunk driving

Illegal in most parts of the world, if you hadn't noticed ;)

point is that guns are dangeous only by the person that uses them.

I'd much sooner a smoker blow smoke in my face than to be shot in the face... to be honest :D

Again. Guns don't kill people, they just make it a lot, lot, lot, lot, lot easier to kill a lot of people very easily.

education and training would make this less dangerous

Except that the opposite is often true. Most training makes you more proficient (thus more dangerous if you decide to use the weapon) as a result.

I'm not arguing against shooting ranges and clay pidgeon shooting and stuff. Surely people can separate that type of hobby/sport with owning and carrying a handgun.

im willing to bet that gun related accidents would decrease

I'm willing to bet that if there were no guns that all gun related accidents and deaths would be instantly reduced to 0%.

We're not going to agree on this, so I'll leave it by saying that I fully respect your right to bare arms.

http://www.countryhumor.com/larry/righttobarearms.jpg



Come on now, that's a rather silly thing to say.


It's utter lunacy and I won't bother even replying to it. Fairly sure I'd rather be attacked by a burger, though.

[Desertrat]

I grew up as a shooter and hunter, as did the family generations before me. I've always taken it for granted.

I never particularly thought about guns and home self-defense until the mid-1960s, when my wife had several occasions to be glad of the availability of her handgun. (I had bought a Ruger Blackhawk, but she thought she oughta have it. So, "my" handgun, then, was a Colt 1911 that she let me keep.) As the possibility of gratuitous violence increased during the late 1970s and 1980s, I became more focussed on the defensive aspect of firearms. The passage of the concealed-carry laws in Texas thus made me legal, at last. :)

For those who are considering the acquisiton of a handgun, I suggest browsing at one of the firearms website. Two in particular which are moderated quite strongly against flaming and rudeness are http://www.thefiringline.com and http:www.thehighroad.org . The moderators there include Olde Pharts like me with over 60 years of experience; several police and schoolteachers, one registered nurse and a few women. The owner of The High Road was born and raised under the auspices of the KGB. For any women here, I also recommend http://www.thecorneredcat.com . Kathy Jackson is a very sharp lady.

'Rat

[iJohnHenry]

I would have a hand-gun, in a heart-beat, if it were allowed.

I have fired almost everything in my time, and I know that people kill people, not guns.

Why should the bad guys have a free ride??

If, and until, they build enough prisons up here to "accommodate" the bad guys, I would like to be responsible for my own well-being.

Society seems to be failing in this task lately.

[majordude]

I live in the US. Handguns are cheap and plentiful.

Handguns aren't that cheap or plentiful anymore. Some are upwards on $2K and there aren't that many stores around anymore.

I suggest a Sig Sauer, Ruger or Kel-Tek.

[swingerofbirch]

I would feel very uncomfortable being near a gun (and yes, I know other people around me have them that I don't know about). I just think guns are a problem. I can understand someone who live in a bad area who worries about intruders. I just wish that someone would invent a nonlethal device that you could shoot from a distance to temporarily cripple someone. Like we shoot animals with tranquilizer guns. I'm not sure how long those take to work. I think that would be ideal, some sort of device to put an intruder to sleep.

[MacNut]

The only reason guns were outlawed in England was because they can kill. But so can smoking or fatty foods. They might not kill you right away but the end result is the same so why not ban those things to.

[Blue Velvet]

...some sort of device to put an intruder to sleep.

Tape recordings of Bill Gates' keynotes? ;)

[majordude]

I would feel very uncomfortable being near a gun (and yes, I know other people around me have them that I don't know about).

Guns can be scary if you don't know how to use one. Ask a friend who has one to go shooting with you. Or take some lessons at a range.

I wouldn't live in America without one.

In the next few years you will HAVE TO HAVE ONE if you want to survive. One big earthquake or bomb or assassination will have rioters and looters looking for easy people and places to pick off. Try doing that with a kitchen knife.

I was out here during the OJ trial. That was bad but things WILL get worse one day. They never get better.

[Dagless]

I just wish that someone would invent a nonlethal device that you could shoot from a distance to temporarily cripple someone. Like we shoot animals with tranquilizer guns. I'm not sure how long those take to work. I think that would be ideal, some sort of device to put an intruder to sleep.

This is why I keep an eye on taser and other disabling weapons. I'd rather stun an intruder or attacker and have the courts deal with them than killing them. Sound weapons could have an interesting future, a "brown sound" gun could be pretty useful. Get a good dose of DNA incase the attacker flees :D

On a side note, even if it was in self defence I've no idea how I'd live with myself knowing I had killed another human. That'd destroy me.

[majordude]

The only reason guns were outlawed in England was because they can kill. But so can smoking or fatty foods. They might not kill you right away but the end result is the same so why not ban those things to.

Life is dangerous, no one gets out alive.

I've no idea how I'd live with myself knowing I had killed another human. That'd destroy me.

I could care less about an animal who tried to kill me or someone innocent around me. I'd feel worse if I broke a stranger's arm in a traffic accident.

[iJohnHenry]

On a side note, even if it was in self defence I've no idea how I'd live with myself knowing I had killed another human. That'd destroy me.

Given the choice, them or me, I would sleep soundly, with no problems.

They brought it upon themselves. Why beat yourself up about it??

[dukebound85]

On a side note, even if it was in self defence I've no idea how I'd live with myself knowing I had killed another human. That'd destroy me.

oh not me at all. if my life was on the line, i would have no issue killing the dude who was attacking me

same goes for protection of my family

an interesting law in colorado known as the "make my day law"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

i fully support it too

side note: interesting trend on these forums: seems the americans are pro guns and the english anti guns haha.

[sananda]

really? wow all the police here carry handguns


the only police i ever see carrying guns in the uk are at the airport and it's always a shock to see their guns at all.

The only reason guns were outlawed in England was because they can kill. But so can smoking or fatty foods. They might not kill you right away but the end result is the same so why not ban those things to.

as has already been pointed out to you, there is a difference. guns are designed to hurt people whereas food is required to live albeit that there are foods which are less nutritious and have adverse effects. as for smoking, it is banned in public places in my country.

[majordude]

side note: interesting trend on these forums: seems the americans are pro guns and the english anti guns haha.

England has a Queen ferchistsakes.

[iJohnHenry]

sananda, so, you would not have a problem with my Whamo sling-shot, and some ball-bearings??

The difference is the delivery system.

It's still just a rock, but at a much higher velocity.

[dmr727]

My preference is that guns for hobby be kept at minimum unloaded and safed as above (and with the ammunition either not in the house or locked separately), or preferably boarded at a gun club or shooting range....

Yeah, I don't keep any ammunition in the house. I buy what I plan on shooting on my way to the range. My wife's service weapon, unfortunately, is kept fully loaded and chambered, but in addition to being in the safe, it has a hefty trigger lock through its holster, and is locked in yet another container.

[sananda]

sananda, so, you would not have a problem with my Whamo sling-shot, and some ball-bearings??

The difference is the delivery system.

It's still just a rock, but at a much higher velocity.

i'm not keen on people people habitually carrying/keeping weapons at all.

[Blue Velvet]

the only police i ever see carrying guns in the uk are at the airport and it's always a shock to see their guns at all.

Oh, there are definitely police with guns here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/08/ukcrime.ukguns) ;)

[iJohnHenry]

i'm not keen on people people habitually carrying/keeping weapons at all.

OK, but if I am, by the blessings of Nature, bigger than you, would you be OK with my forcing myself on you??

I don't think so.

[sananda]

OK, but if I am, by the blessings of Nature, bigger than you, would you be OK with my forcing myself on you??

I don't think so.

then if i get a weapon to prevent you from forcing yourself on me you will get a bigger weapon. and so on. it's the road to nowhere.

[iJohnHenry]

Oh, there are definitely police with guns here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/08/ukcrime.ukguns) ;)
A valuable post, but I feel the "terrorists" must "claim" the responsibility for this situation.

And, on another front, the sooner we get away from the "claiming" part, and publish the "accept guilt" part, the sooner I will like it.

It is, after all, all in the details.

[EricNau]

Guns aren't the problem in the US; it's the people. We've failed. All of us, as a society are to blame.

The solution no longer lies with gun control; either banning guns altogether or making ownership laws less strict, it doesn't matter. There are other countries with extremely lax gun laws with extremely low violence rates, and likewise, there are countries with extremely strict gun laws with extremely low violence rates. However, for the US, it's too late for that debate.

Our crime rate is pathetic, after all, what's the universal argument in defense of gun ownership: we don't feel safe in our own homes. In comparison to other countries, our homicide and incarceration rates are appalling. We have to get the the root of the problem: us.

So you all can argue about gun laws all you want, but that ship has sailed, and we all missed the boat.

[sananda]

Oh, there are definitely police with guns here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/08/ukcrime.ukguns) ;)

my brother was recently telling me that the police cars containing police with guns have yellow circular stickers on them. i looked out for it and saw a few stickered cars around central london but no actual guns on the street.

[majordude]

then if i get a weapon to prevent you from forcing yourself on me you will get a bigger weapon. and so on. it's the road to nowhere.

That is where you are wrong. I could care less if you have a .22 or a .45. As a matter of fact, .22's kill more people than .45s.

If neither of us have anything that will kill each other either of us will pick a fight. If you know I have something that you know will kill you you won't attack me. If I know that you don't have anything that will kill me, I will attack you. If you and I both can kill each other we won't even start.

It's MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction.

Before you respond, remember that it is proven. Russia nor the US attacked each other because we both would die.

Cities in the US that support concealed handgun laws have less crime.

Facts. Not feelings.

[sananda]

That is where you are wrong. I could care less if you have a .22 or a .45. As a matter of fact, .22's kill more people than .45s.

If neither of us have anything that will kill each other either of us will pick a fight. If you know I have something that you know will kill you you won't attack me. If I know that you don't have anything that will kill me, I will attack you. If you and I both can kill each other we won't even start.

It's MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction.

Before you respond, remember that it is proven. Russia nor the US attacked each other because we both would die.

Cities in the US that support concealed handgun laws have less crime.

Facts. Not feelings.

i fail to see why you think it's a fact that neither russia nor the us attacked each other because of the vastness of their weapons. you are drawing that conclusion simply because nuclear war did not take place and that's faulty logic.

[majordude]

We have to get the the root of the problem: us.

http://www.igopogo.com/poster4.jpg

[dmr727]

Seems to me that the only way to get rid of handgun crime in the States is to completely eradicate *all* handguns. As everyone mentions, criminals aren't going to pay attention to rules imposed on the legitimate owners. You have to get them entirely out of circulation to begin with. But the way our political system is set up, there's no way any politician will suggest we do that. It'd be political suicide.

The question is, will getting rid of handgun crime lower the overall violent crime rate, or just change the tools the criminals use? I'm not sure. I know violent crime is higher here in the States (than England), but is that because handguns are available, or is it a cultural thing? The rate of rape in the States is similarly higher as well, but that's not a handgun problem. It kind of makes me think that banning handguns might be merely a band-aid to cover a much bigger issue.

[EricNau]

i fail to see why you think it's a fact that neither russia nor the us attacked each other because of the vastness of their weapons. you are drawing that conclusion simply because nuclear war did not take place and that's faulty logic.
That's the view held universally by most historians.

[dukebound85]

i fail to see why you think it's a fact that neither russia nor the us attacked each other because of the vastness of their weapons. you are drawing that conclusion simply because nuclear war did not take place and that's faulty logic.

im pretty sure MAD was the main preventer of nuclear war as ther would have been no winner. what is your take lol

[majordude]

i fail to see why you think it's a fact that neither russia nor the us attacked each other because of the vastness of their weapons. you are drawing that conclusion simply because nuclear war did not take place and that's faulty logic.

Logic? You are throwing around words you don't understand. You're bringing a knife to a gunfight.

[dmr727]

i fail to see why you think it's a fact that neither russia nor the us attacked each other because of the vastness of their weapons. you are drawing that conclusion simply because nuclear war did not take place and that's faulty logic.

Holy crap, haven't you seen the movie WarGames? Didn't WOPR teach you *anything*? :)

[iJohnHenry]

It has been pointed out by smarter people then me, that the right to bear arms was crafted during the cap and ball days.

Handguns are so far beyond that it is not even funny.

Short guns should be banned in the States. At least that would be a start.

If you need protection, there is nothing like a 12-gauge shotgun to afford it.

[dmr727]

If you need protection, there is nothing like a 12-gauge shotgun to afford it.

Yep, and the sound made by chambering a round speaks 50 different languages!

[sananda]

That's the view held universally by most historians.

im pretty sure MAD was the main preventer of nuclear war as ther would have been no winner. what is your take lol

it's a theory; it's not proven.

[majordude]

That's the view held universally by most historians.

BS.

And the "vastness" of weapons did not exist until midway through the the Cold War.

The Bay of Pigs almost lead to a war but because both countries would suffer immense casualties the Russians backed down. Their only option.

[srf4real]

Handguns are cool, but I have never needed to shoot anything or anyone where a rifle was not sufficient. I do not like the fact that handguns can be concealed so easily. I keep my guns in the truck right where you can see them.:cool:

[majordude]

It has been pointed out by smarter people then me, that the right to bear arms was crafted during the cap and ball days.

That's like saying the 1st Amendment was crafted during the feather pen and parchment days. The Founding Fathers had no idea about offset printing, radio, TV or the internet.

What the hell are they teaching you kids in skool these days? If you just think twice you will be one of the smartest people on the board.

[mr.light]

Handguns are cool, but I have never needed to shoot anything or anyone where a rifle was not sufficient. I do not like the fact that handguns can be concealed so easily. I keep my guns in the truck right where you can see them.:cool:

Are you dodging the FBI by chance?;):D

[sananda]

BS.

And the "vastness" of weapons did not exist until midway through the the Cold War.

The Bay of Pigs almost lead to a war but because both countries would suffer immense casualties the Russians backed down. Their only option.

i think ericnau was agreeing with you!

[Blue Velvet]

If neither of us have anything that will kill each other either of us will pick a fight. If you know I have something that you know will kill you you won't attack me. If I know that you don't have anything that will kill me, I will attack you. If you and I both can kill each other we won't even start.


If only disputes were that logical. People do crazy things in the heat of the moment and people who are determined to die don't care about their own safety, but will be quite happy to take others with them. What's more, there are those who will foolishly escalate a stupid argument into something far more lethal, so by not having easy access to guns means it's less likely that a group of fatalities will occur.

You really have to live in a society that has strict gun laws to appreciate its advantages. What may seem like a lack of freedom to you is seen as over here as the opposite. The majority of gun violence over here is usually criminal against criminal, not against the public.

But saying that, I've come to appreciate that things are different over there... and that with that degree of access to weapons, comes inevitable trouble. You can't argue with the per capita murder rates, and by attempting to put it down to cultural differences, it ignores what a crowded and tense little island this is... you'd see a bloodbath here if we had the same gun laws.

[majordude]

i think ericnau was agreeing with you!

D'oh! ;)

You really have to live in a society that has strict gun laws to appreciate its advantages.

I don't disagree with you. The problem is that here, in America, the genie is out of the bottle. You could never round up all the guns and at some point the ones with guns will unite against those that don't have any.

[iJohnHenry]

That's like saying the 1st Amendment was crafted during the feather pen and parchment days. The Founding Fathers had no idea about offset printing, radio, TV or the internet.

What the hell are they teaching you kids in skool these days? If you just think twice you will be one of the smartest people on the board.

Very cleaver, sort of, but methods of communication can hardly be grouped with methods of murder!!

[Desertrat]

dmr727: During their research for the book "Under The Gun", Wright/Rossi/Daly interviewed felons in Florida's Raiford Prison. Felons who were incarcerated for violence involving firearms.

When asked what they would do if handguns were not available, the invariable response was that they would obtain long guns and apply hacksaws. They would thus continue to have concealable deadly weapons.

Medical data from such as the Center for Disease Control says that of those shot with handguns, some one-third die and some two-thirds survive. Of those shot with rifles and shotguns, the converse is true. It could thus be quite possible that were magic applied and all handguns eliminated, the death rate from firearms cold increase.

To get back to the thoughts of the OP: If one is unsure about actually being able to use deadly force in self-defense, the best thing is to avoid a firearm. If one is ambivalent, then I once again offer the idea of reading through that arena of thought at the Cornered Cat website, where it is discussed in depth.

Anybody who says they'll give no further thought to having killed somebody in self-defense is most likely a Keyboard Kommando. I've known more than one man who enjoyed combat in the military, and not even they are totally content with their memories. Taking someone's life is something to have thought about long before the need ever arises.

'Rat

[sananda]

I don't disagree with you. The problem is that here, in America, the genie is out of the bottle. You could never round up all the guns and at some point the ones with guns will unite against those that don't have any.

and because of that i wonder how my views would alter if i lived where you do.

[dukebound85]

Anybody who says they'll give no further thought to having killed somebody in self-defense is most likely a Keyboard Kommando. I've known more than one man who enjoyed combat in the military, and not even they are totally content with their memories. Taking someone's life is something to have thought about long before the need ever arises.

'Rat

i agree with the rest of the post except the part i pulled out.

if someone was attacking me with the intent to hurt or kill me, i would not feel at all remorseful about killing the guy inflicting the harm on me.

[majordude]

Very cleaver, sort of, but methods of communication can hardly be grouped with methods of murder!!

"The pen is mightier than the sword."

War is started with communicating ideas -- long before a shot is fired.

There are people in this world who would like to curtail free speech. People want to stop Rush Limbaugh from speaking. People want to stop missionaries from prosletising. People want to stop people from speaking out against Bush, muslimism, immigrants, whatever. If talk was so cheap, why do we pay so much attention to it?

[iJohnHenry]

"The pen is mightier than the sword."

True, but in the short term, survival is to be preferred.

This is the reason I like Home Alone and Straw Dogs. People taking charge of their own destiny. Not acquiescing their very existence to "society", whatever the **** that is these days??

Edit: Also, Mr. Majestyk, with Charles Bronson. ;)

[majordude]

Not acquiescing their very existence to "society", whatever the **** that is these days??

Language makes a society and we have splintered during the Clinton/Bush regimes. We can read about the rise but we are witnessing the fall of America.

Will we be like England, which is still around around today, or will we be like the Roman, Greek, or Babylonian empires who only exist in history books and in broken ruins for future tourists?

[iJohnHenry]

Will we be like England, which is still around around today, or will we be like the Roman, Greek, or Babylonian empires who only exist in history books and in broken ruins for future tourists?

Duke, are these our only choices?? :eek:

Well, perhaps us Canucks have seen some the worst of the English twits.

We can but pray that this is so.

[ErikCLDR]

Its your right to own one, so no one can stop you. (Unless you fail the permit class)

I believe you should be able to own a gun. If you weren't, then only the bad people would have guns. Most of the people that kill with guns probably are doing other illegal things (drugs, robbing, etc). As we saw with the Ban on guns in D.C. it did nothing to stop gun crime.

You can't just say "no more guns" and expect all gun crime to disappear. How many illegal guns do you think are out there.

That said there should be high standards for being able to own a gun.

[Iscariot]

I didn't read past Page 2, so please excuse me if I've repeated something that's already been said.

I voted "I vehemently object to handgun ownership." Don't confuse that with not being a supporter of the second amendment of your nation, or the right for my countrymen to own firearms. I simply disagree with nearly all of the rhetoric that pro-gun ownership individuals like to repeat ad nausem, which are the main arguments for handgun ownership.

If you want to buy a gun for target practice, I highly recommend getting a bolt action rifle, especially if you can get a rifle with some age, weight, and history behind it. Establishing a firing/reloading rhythym and just the bolt action alone is vastly more satisfying than a handgun.

[Dagless]

I could care less about an animal who tried to kill me or someone innocent around me.

Given the choice, them or me, I would sleep soundly, with no problems.

They brought it upon themselves. Why beat yourself up about it??

oh not me at all. if my life was on the line, i would have no issue killing the dude who was attacking me

Holy hell. Words escape me.

[Mord]

The only reason I'd consider one would be to protect myself from the government...

The only valid reason IMO other than agricultural shotguns.

[blackfox]

As I often mention when I ill-advisedly post in a gun thread - I am all for gun ownership - but I want severe restrictions on bullets. Is there a constitutional right to ammunition?

Whether the above is strictly rhetorical or not is in the eye-of-the beholder.

[.Andy]

The only reason I'd consider one would be to protect myself from the government...
I'm interested in the etiquette of this. Do you still 'support the troops' when you're fighting against the government? Or do you still support the troops but just not their mission and excuse them to be just following orders?

If there's a real danger of having to fight the government, as well as arming yourselves, surely it would be of interest to limit the weapons and technology the military acquire with taxpayer money, considering that they could use it in the future against you. Why isn't there a push for this?

[glocke12]

This doesnt have much to do with the topic at hand, and Im not complaining, but of all the message boards Im on, this one seems to be the most left leaning, anti-gun one.

The other boards I spend time range from music and musical instrument message boards, to boards that have to do with medical marijauna use.

Do mac users in general tend to be more left leaning or more prone to be anti-gun ?

[Iscariot]

This doesnt have much to do with the topic at hand, and Im not complaining, but of all the message boards Im on, this one seems to be the most left leaning, anti-gun one.

The other boards I spend time range from music and musical instrument message boards, to boards that have to do with medical marijauna use.

Do mac users in general tend to be more left leaning or more prone to be anti-gun ?

A big part of the MacRumors community is from the UK, as well as a sprinkling of Aussies and Canadians. All nations with much stricter gun control laws, and lower homicide rates topically, and more left-leaning than the US in general.

[yellow]

FIRST OFF:

I'd like to say how much I appreciate the thoughtful and restrained way people are responding in this thread on both sides of the issue. Gun ownership is a very divisive issue with both side having very valid arguments (IMO), particularly given the differing cultural opinions based on one's location in the world. Thanks for all your opinions, no matter what they are. I am thankful for your thoughts on this, no matter what they are.

And now, some responses (thank you multi-quote):

Let us know what you get.

Originally it was my wife who wanted one, and I was against it. She grew up hunting and has a very healthy respect (as do I) for firearms, and a ton of experience (as I do not) with them. For 6 months or so we've been going back and forth discussing the pros and cons for handgun ownership. I'll get to the particulars later in the thread. But for now:

I am more interested in pistols, but for practical purposes, I think our initial purchase will be a revolver. My pistol interested are:


Sig Saur P229 in .40
HK USP in .40


Though the gun store owner tried to talk me into a Springfield Arms XD, which has pretty positive reviews and is significantly less expensive than the above listed handguns. But he also talked us into perhaps a revolver being a better choice because of the simplicity of it's use.

My wife likes a S&W .38 with no hammer.

Before we purchase, we're going to go to a firing range where you can rent guns and get a good feel for what we like.


That said, I own:

Sig Saur P226R in .40
HK USP .40 Compact with an LEM trigger

I really like the USP. I put a couple hundred through a .45 a few years back and really enjoyed the weight and feel of it. This is in my top 3 choices.


For those who are considering the acquisiton of a handgun, I suggest browsing at one of the firearms website. Two in particular which are moderated quite strongly against flaming and rudeness are http://www.thefiringline.com and http:www.thehighroad.org . The moderators there include Olde Pharts like me with over 60 years of experience; several police and schoolteachers, one registered nurse and a few women. The owner of The High Road was born and raised under the auspices of the KGB. For any women here, I also recommend http://www.thecorneredcat.com . Kathy Jackson is a very sharp lady.

Thanks Rat, though I have done quite a bit of research, there's always room for more. I will definitely check out these sites and try to get some more insight. I appreciate the links.

Handguns aren't that cheap or plentiful anymore. Some are upwards on $2K and there aren't that many stores around anymore.

I suggest a Sig Sauer, Ruger or Kel-Tek.

Here in The South, they're still pretty cheap and definitely plentiful. Between $400 and $900 is what we're looking at. Thanks for the suggestions too!

Guns aren't the problem in the US; it's the people. We've failed. All of us, as a society are to blame.

The solution no longer lies with gun control; either banning guns altogether or making ownership laws less strict, it doesn't matter. There are other countries with extremely lax gun laws with extremely low violence rates, and likewise, there are countries with extremely strict gun laws with extremely low violence rates. However, for the US, it's too late for that debate.

Our crime rate is pathetic, after all, what's the universal argument in defense of gun ownership: we don't feel safe in our own homes. In comparison to other countries, our homicide and incarceration rates are appalling. We have to get the the root of the problem: us.

So you all can argue about gun laws all you want, but that ship has sailed, and we all missed the boat.

Very well said, and I totally agree.

I would like to note, I am a registered Democrat and have been for nearly 20 years. However, I do believe in a strong military. And I do believe in the 2nd Amendment. But I also believe that making firearm ownership more difficult isn't a bad idea. I the end, it won't hurt me because I am a law-abiding and responsible member of American society.
But I do not feel safe anymore. I have this gut feeling that the world is devolving socially, and let's face it. Humans have a pretty hefty history of violence. I don't see that changing when the political, financial, and cultural climate makes it so difficult for people to get along.
I truly believe that there's still a surprisingly large portion of the world population that wants to live an increasingly insular lifestyle. As this trend rises, outsiders become more and more threatening and the chance of violence increases. Coupled with (real or imaginged) competition for declining resources, more base instincts take over.

Now it's a bit silly to think globally, yet act locally in terms of owning a handgun. I realize that. But you would be surprised at the sharp increase in violent crime where I live. I see things getting worse before they get better.

I keep my guns in the truck right where you can see them.

Must be some BIG mosquitoes where you live! ;)

I am all for gun ownership - but I want severe restrictions on bullets. Is there a constitutional right to ammunition?

Interesting thought. I have a friend whom I hadn't seen or spoken to for 3 or 4 months. We met and caught up, he told me he purchased 2 handguns. Blah blah story blah.. but he had 1000 rounds for each. 2000 rounds. That seems exessive to me. Of course, this is early in his ownership and he wants to get proficient with them. I understand that completely. But once the learning curve is over (for the most part), will he still need 2000-5000 rounds in his home?

I'm not sure one could restrict rounds. AFAIK, most diehards simply make their own. It's cheaper. Keep your brass after firing, copper is relatively plentiful (though REALLY expensive now), and gunpowder is self-manufacturable if need be.

This doesnt have much to do with the topic at hand, and Im not complaining, but of all the message boards Im on, this one seems to be the most left leaning, anti-gun one.

The other boards I spend time range from music and musical instrument message boards, to boards that have to do with medical marijauna use.

Do mac users in general tend to be more left leaning or more prone to be anti-gun ?

Yes, this site's political leanings are definitely left-leaning (Me: guilty as charged), but I don't know if it's really a symptom or a coincidence with Mac ownership. Looking at the contrary, I'm not sure I'd say PC owners are more right-leaning? Maybe it's just that right-leaners tend to be older and perhaps not a internet-savvy or internet-interested, so a disproportionate number of responders are younger and more left-leaning? And Iscariot makes a good point too, about the global demographics of the board's denizens.

[majordude]

Holy hell. Words escape me.

How about...

"Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi." - George Orwell

[glocke12]

FIRST OFF: .



Yes, this site's political leanings are definitely left-leaning (Me: guilty as charged), but I don't know if it's really a symptom or a coincidence with Mac ownership. Looking at the contrary, I'm not sure I'd say PC owners are more right-leaning? Maybe it's just that right-leaners tend to be older and perhaps not a internet-savvy or internet-interested, so a disproportionate number of responders are younger and more left-leaning? And Iscariot makes a good point too, about the global demographics of the board's denizens.



That makes sense. I think one thing that people in other countries do not understand, is that here in the U.S., many of us grew up around guns, and most of us were taught to use them in a responsible manner. Im 40 now, and growing up my brothers both had guns, and I was given my first rifle, a .22 at 12 years old. I have many fond memories of target shooting with this rifle with my dad. Even in college (in western montana) in the early nineties, we would be allowed to have hunting rifles in our dorm rooms, and I recall some guys sitting on the steps outside to clean their rifles. It was only after college, when I started working in the mid atlantic area of the U.S. that I stared running into people who were anti-gun, and I think many of them were anti-gun because of a lack of familiarity.

So, here in the states we really do have more of a gun culture that is a result of a large part of our country being rural. However, the rural areas are going, and are turning into suburbs, and with that I see a steady decline in the gun and the hunting culture. I suspect that within 2 generations the states will have a widespread ban of sometype on firearm ownership.

Kind of sad really. Guns are fun, and I have turned more than a couple of anti-gunners onto the joys of long range target shooting with high powered rifles, handgun shooting, and sporting clays.

Also, 2000 rounds of ammo is not that much. I know people that shoot 1000 rounds a month.

[yellow]

Also, 2000 rounds of ammo is not that much. I know people that shoot 1000 rounds a month.

Dang. I've exposed my ignorance then.

Maybe for people from the "outside" of the gun culture are confused by the obvious difference in numbers? For example, a typical full size or compact pistol will hold 12-15 rounds. For what reason would one need 100x that number?

Logically I understand that it takes a lot of practice to become proficient, and a lot of practice requires a lot of rounds. Hell, just shooting my (phantom) pistol from above 10 or 20 times in an afternoon would burn through a significant number of rounds.

However, if you're not working on proficiency, do you really need 90 clips worth of rounds? :)

[glocke12]

Dang. I've exposed my ignorance then.

Maybe for people from the "outside" of the gun culture are confused by the obvious difference in numbers? For example, a typical full size or compact pistol will hold 12-15 rounds. For what reason would one need 100x that number?

Logically I understand that it takes a lot of practice to become proficient, and a lot of practice requires a lot of rounds. Hell, just shooting my (phantom) pistol from above 10 or 20 times in an afternoon would burn through a significant number of rounds.

However, if you're not working on proficiency, do you really need 90 clips worth of rounds? :)


Maybe this will clear things up. At the peak of my gun collecting/shooting interest I would go to the indoor range twice a week, and shoot 100 rounds each time. Thats 200 rounds a week, 800 rounds a month. Guys that compete in matches that I know shoot twice that much, at least.

When I was shooting highpower rifle alot, Id go through 100 rounds of rifle ammo every saturday. Thats 400 rounds a month. I wasnt even as "serious" about it as others are. There are people that shoot way more than that.

Also, you gotta keep in mind that jsut like anything else, buying ammo in bulk is less expensive. I currently have 2000-3000 rounds of mil surplus 30-06 ammo I bought in bulk. Since I dont shoot that much anymore, it will probably last me about 5 years. The cost was about $0.40 per round, compared to commercial ammo which would be at least $1.00 per round.


By the way, why did I shoot that much? First off it IS fun, is a good stress reliever, and is a good way to practice discipline.


I know all this is probably diffucult for people "outside the culture" to understand....

[aLoC]

I have no objection in principle to handguns. At the moment I live in a very safe neighborhood so don't feel the need, but if I fell on financial hard times and had to move somewhere cheaper would definitely consider it. I don't think it's realistic to expect the police to get there on time.

I disagree with those who say it should be locked in a safe somewhere. If it's an adult household and no kids ever visit then just keep it in the kitchen drawer.

[Desertrat]

yellow, to follow up on your "But I also believe that making firearm ownership more difficult isn't a bad idea.":

Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, you could phone in a credit card number to some store in another state and the postman would make the delivery to your front door.

Now, you must fill out a multi-page form under penalty of perjury, show ID, undergo an FBI check--and all that face-to-face with the dealer.

Even with all that, crime rates with firearms did not decline. More laws were passed to make acquisition even more difficult, and crime rates with firearms did not decline.

Even Russia's KGB could not prevent people from possessing fully-automatic weapons. How much difficulty is warranted, if it does no good in reducing crime rates?

Ammo quantity: When I was shooting competition pistol (IPSC), I commonly fired several hundred rounds each week as practice, and at least 50 rounds at the weekend matches. Serious competitors at the national level shoot far more than I did--and there are thousands of such shooters.

Search Google for "IPSC" and "IDPA". Check at their websites to see if there is a club near you. Find out when they're having a match. Just go watch. It may not be at all of interest for you, insofar as taking part. But it's certainly instructional as to what people can do, and how much attention is paid to gun safety.

In the "just for fun" part of the shooting game, you have stunts like this:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/video/tricks/ and even more astounding at http://www.shootingusa.com/IMPOSSIBLE_SHOTS/impossible_shots.html

A fast-growing sport is that of the folks of the Single Action Shooting Society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy_action_shooting I've not gone to any matches, but the TV shows of the events depict men, women and younguns having a helluva fun time.

There's a lot more to this whole world of guns than blood and gore...

:), 'Rat

[KingYaba]

I'd like to hear as much feedback as possible.

Get what ever you feel comfortable with. I would recommend a 9mm because the ammo is cheaper since you want to do some target shooting. Check out some CZ handguns.

Target shooting? Target shooting is fun and challenging. I would suggest avoiding indoor shooting ranges. I drive out of town to an empty field and line up coke cans on this old wooden fence. Ranges suck because it's $20 for a lane, $1.50 for rental eye protection and ear protection (only if you don't own your own). I am more comfortable heading out by myself or with a friend to do some shooting in a remote area compared to a claustrophobic area with dozens of random people. That $20 for a range lane is better spent on shotgun shells that round out to about $1.00 for every shot fired.

[iJohnHenry]

I disagree with those who say it should be locked in a safe somewhere. If it's an adult household and no kids ever visit then just keep it in the kitchen drawer.

"Excuse me Mr. Robber, whilst I try to remember the combination to my gun safe."

Useless.

In an all-adult household, I believe the kitchen drawer is fine.

If there are minors in the home, then a trigger lock, with the key around your neck, should suffice.

[stevento]

i somewhat object to handgun ownership. not all handgun ownership, i think we need to keep a closer eye on who has them and where they are going.
i would not own a handgun myself because they are more likely to hurt someone of your own family than an intruder. we just moved to an area with a lot less crime than before. if crime goes up here, we'll move again.

[bigandy]

oh not me at all. if my life was on the line, i would have no issue killing the dude who was attacking me
You may believe that, but have you ever been in that situation?

I've heard that phrase before, and when it's come to crunch time, they've proven to be all talk.



side note: interesting trend on these forums: seems the americans are pro guns and the english anti guns haha.
Because of the quite obvious culture differences. They've been no more than a rarity here for many years. We don't need them much to keep our idiots in check.

[yellow]

We don't need them much to keep our idiots in check.

That's borderline disingenuous of you to say.

Please don't forget that the US has approximately 6 TIMES the population of England, and therefore probably has (at least) 6 TIMES the amount of "idiots" spread out of a territory that is 75 TIMES larger (in square miles).

This should not be used as reasoning to own a handgun, but it's hardly fair to compare "idiots" on a 1:1 scale.

[dukebound85]

Holy hell. Words escape me.

oh my bad im going to feel sorry about protecting myself:rolleyes:

You may believe that, but have you ever been in that situation?

I've heard that phrase before, and when it's come to crunch time, they've proven to be all talk.




Because of the quite obvious culture differences. They've been no more than a rarity here for many years. We don't need them much to keep our idiots in check.

i havent been in that situation but i know myself well enough to know i would not feel guilty about saving myself from some nut trying to hurt or kill me

[Desertrat]

stevento, if you really believe your, "i would not own a handgun myself because they are more likely to hurt someone of your own family than an intruder.": Listen up. I have a helluva cash deal on a bridge. Just for you. :D

Seriously, unless you're physically and intellectually inept, that's just not a true statement. Sure, your own psychology might well be the proximate cause of that harmful possibility, but it's in no way some sort of given. But the whole gun shtick is nothing more than one of thousands of learning curves that exist throughout one's life.

'Rat

[djellison]

So, do you own a handgun*? Why or why not? .

Well - they're illegal in the UK. Can you describe a situation where a having a handgun in the home can only help a situation toward a happy outcome? IMHO, they can only ever aggravate a situation, make it more dangerous, elevate the potential for violence.

Do you know what I have instead of a weapon?

Home and Contents insurance, and a safe.

Far far safer.

[aLoC]

However, the idea that a handgun is going to protect anyone against the government is hilarious. If they're after you, for god knows whatever reason, I think you'll need a hell of a lot more than a handgun.

They mean if the government tries to go tyrannical on the whole country, not if it just goes after one individual.

And if you think a well-armed citizenry could not stand up to a modern professional army look at how much trouble has been caused to the allies in the Middle East.

[bartelby]

stevento, if you really believe your, "i would not own a handgun myself because they are more likely to hurt someone of your own family than an intruder.": Listen up. I have a helluva cash deal on a bridge. Just for you. :D

Seriously, unless you're physically and intellectually inept, that's just not a true statement. Sure, your own psychology might well be the proximate cause of that harmful possibility, but it's in no way some sort of given. But the whole gun shtick is nothing more than one of thousands of learning curves that exist throughout one's life.

'Rat

I guess the people who are killed unintentionally by firearms in the US would disagree. If they were still around to, of course.

[yellow]

Home and Contents insurance, and a safe.

Far far safer.

And it's large enough for you to crawl into, I assume? ;)

My wife is very diminutive and she has fears, right or wrong, about being alone and vulnerable to physical aggression.
Salt liberally with a remote rural location, prevalence of firearms, and an increasing crime problem and there you have it.
My own personal justification.

I imagine it's hard to understand when it's rare that you see a handgun. My office is about 500 feet from a Dunkin' Donuts. I bet I can pop over there and catch a couple of cops right now, all armed with handguns. It's a common site here.

They mean if the government tries to go tyrannical on the whole country, not if it just goes after one individual.

I figured it was just a cynical statement.

[Dagless]

i havent been in that situation but i know myself well enough to know i would not feel guilty about saving myself from some nut trying to hurt or kill me

So you'd shoot and kill another human because they wanted to hurt you, at a pinch they did hurt you.

If I'm being honest you sound dangerous and/or mental.

[dukebound85]

So you'd shoot and kill another human because they wanted to hurt you, at a pinch they did hurt you.

If I'm being honest you sound dangerous and/or mental.

if you read my posts, i said i would not feel guilty to kill someone if they were in the process of attacking me with the intent to cause serious injury or death.

dont get on your high horse and tell me you're better than me in this regard

if someone was gonna stab me i would indeed protect myself with whatever means necessary

i also said i believe training is important to realize at what point you decide to use a gun or not in a situation. i also say i would hope to never be in a situation where i felt using a gun is required. i say that having the knowlege and confidence to use one is important if you are ever in that situation though

read my posts before you make absurd judgments on me

[aLoC]

So you'd shoot and kill another human because they wanted to hurt you, at a pinch they did hurt you.

If you heard a noise downstairs in the middle of the night, and you went down to investigate, and then was a burglar and he saw you and started to run at you, are you saying you wouldn't start blasting away? You would just leave yourself at his mercy?

[yellow]

So you'd shoot and kill another human because they wanted to hurt you, at a pinch they did hurt you.

If I'm being honest you sound dangerous and/or mental.

Please don't start with aspersions on his mental competency. That's totally unfair.
Right or wrong, he's entitled to his opinion, just as you are.

[dukebound85]

If you heard a noise downstairs in the middle of the night, and you went down to investigate, and then was a burglar and he saw you and started to run at you, are you saying you wouldn't start blasting away? You would just leave yourself at his mercy?

and in colorado and other states, you are clearly allowed to do this in your home.

i wouldnt blast away unless he was intending to attack me. hell he broke into my home putting my family at risk

if i caught him in the act id call the cops with the gun trained on him till they arrived

[MacNut]

IMO the fear the english have of guns seems far less healthy than our having them. I think we are more comfortable in seeing a person having one than the English do of just talking about it.

[it5five]

I imagine it's hard to understand when it's rare that you see a handgun. My office is about 500 feet from a Dunkin' Donuts. I bet I can pop over there and catch a couple of cops right now, all armed with handguns. It's a common site here.


I would imagine it's not only because he "doesn't see guns" that he thinks a safe and insurance would be a better option. I see guns all the time, and would opt for a non lethal "weapon" (pepper spray) and a safe + insurance.

A gun would do nothing more than a non-lethal weapon in terms of home protection. If the goal is to stop the intruder, a taser or pepper spray would be just as effective as a lethal weapon until the police arrive.

If you heard a noise downstairs in the middle of the night, and you went down to investigate, and then was a burglar and he saw you and started to run at you, are you saying you wouldn't start blasting away? You would just leave yourself at his mercy?

No, I would not start blasting away. I would either run back into my room, lock the door and call the police, or would use a non-lethal method to stop the burglar. This is, of course, assuming the intruder wouldn't run away at the sight/sound of another human, which is what would most likely happen.

Please don't start with aspersions on his mental competency. That's totally unfair.
Right or wrong, he's entitled to his opinion, just as you are.

I don't think it is unfair at all. People's mental competency SHOULD be questioned if they say they can kill and feel no regret for doing so. Those are the types of people that shouldn't own guns, but unfortunately it seems they are the only ones that own guns.

IMO the fear the english have of guns seems far less healthy than our having them. I think we are more comfortable in seeing a person having one than the English do of just talking about it.

I don't know why this has been repeated so many times in this thread. I, an American, have agreed with the UK posters here in this thread more than I have the Americans. Nationality has nothing to do with it. Paranoia and the cowboy mentality held by most gun owning Americans have more to do with it than where someone is located.

[dukebound85]

I don't think it is unfair at all. People's mental competency SHOULD be questioned if they say they can kill and feel no regret for doing so. Those are the types of people that shouldn't own guns, but unfortunately it seems they are the only ones that own guns.

if YOUR life was in danger or your CHILD's, are you saying you would have to think hard about killing the guy who may kill you or your kid?? give me a efffing break

[it5five]

if YOUR life was in danger or your CHILD's, are you saying you would have to think hard about killing the guy who may kill you or your kid?? give me a efffing break

That's the thing, though. I don't think everyone out there is trying to kill me. I don't frame my life around that scenario, because it is incredibly unlikely that it will ever happen.

But if in the incredibly unlikely event it did happen, I could tell you I would absolutely not kill whoever it was that was trying to harm me. I would do what I could to stop the person and call the police. And I can say that with as much certainty as you when you said you'd kill someone, no questions asked, and feel no regret.

[aLoC]

This is, of course, assuming the intruder wouldn't run away at the sight/sound of another human, which is what would most likely happen.

Well I wouldn't shoot him either if he said "eeeek" and ran away.

[Prof.]

Why am I not surprised to find out that Yellow wrote this post?


:p

[dukebound85]

That's the thing, though. I don't think everyone out there is trying to kill me. I don't frame my life around that scenario, because it is incredibly unlikely that it will ever happen.

But if in the incredibly unlikely event it did happen, I could tell you I would absolutely not kill whoever it was that was trying to harm me. I would do what I could to stop the person and call the police. And I can say that with as much certainty as you when you said you'd kill someone, no questions asked, and feel no regret.

i dont think anyone is trying to kill me either. i dont plan on it much like i dont plan on getting into a car wreck. do i wear seatbelts though and take precautions and hope they never have to be used to save my life? absolutely

incredibly unlikely that you can get attacked?? i dont think so

well of course id would resort to anything but a gun if i could but if it came down to it i would use it if that was the only option left

[yellow]

Why am I not surprised to find out that Yellow wrote this post?

Really? Pray tell why? :confused:

[Mitch1984]

When I saw this thread i expected it to be in the iphone forum LOL.

[it5five]

incredibly unlikely that you can get attacked?? i dont think so


How so? I've never been attacked in my life, nobody I know has ever been attacked, and nobody in my family has ever been attacked. In fact, crime rates are dropping throughout most of the country. So yes, it is incredibly unlikely that I will ever be attacked by anybody in my entire life.

[Prof.]

Really? Pray tell why? :confused:
Your avatar(s).

[yellow]

Your avatar(s).

Ooooooh. Heh. Pure coincidence, I assure you. :)

[MacNut]

When I saw this thread i expected it to be in the iphone forum LOL.You would need more than a gun.:p

[yellow]

In fact, crime rates are dropping throughout most of the country.

True.. over the last 10 years (until 2006) , estimates are that it's down 13.3%. However, it's up nearly 2% from 2005 to 2006. As economic hard times effect more and more people in the US, call me cynical, I expect crime rates to increase.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

[Lord Blackadder]

But if in the incredibly unlikely event it did happen, I could tell you I would absolutely not kill whoever it was that was trying to harm me. I would do what I could to stop the person and call the police. And I can say that with as much certainty as you when you said you'd kill someone, no questions asked, and feel no regret.

I think both you and dukebound85 are a little too certain on your courses of action...You cannot predict what will happen in incredibly unlikely life-threatening situations - that's why they are called incredibly unlikely life-threatening situations. I know my first reaction to such a situation would be to flee the threat with wife/kids, keeping myself between them if necessary. It's hard to call the cops while running for your life too, if a threat presents itself the only viable options are generally either fight or flight.

There's a major difference between making yourself aware of potential dangers and being obsessed and paranoid. You can be the former without being the latter. I know of several people who are by no means gun aficionados but keep weapons for self-defense. They have undertaken several training programs about when not to use a firearm and how to generally get out of trouble before the situation gets really bad. They have also learned how to use a firearm when the weapon becomes a last resort.

I don't feel the need for a self defense weapon at this point, but I respect people's right to go that route if they wish. I also expect them to be responsible about it, as we should be in all aspects of our lives.

[dukebound85]

How so? I've never been attacked in my life, nobody I know has ever been attacked, and nobody in my family has ever been attacked. In fact, crime rates are dropping throughout most of the country. So yes, it is incredibly unlikely that I will ever be attacked by anybody in my entire life.

and i bet you live in a nice part of the country. i do now currently but wasnt always the case when i used to live in more shady areas in atlanta

i have had my house broken into twice and tankfully no one was in it at the time here in fort collins

ive also had friends killed. remember the Lacy Miller story? this happend on the SAME neighborhood i lived on, once again in ft collins (which is a relatively safe town)

http://www.coloradoan.com/news/coloradoanpublishing/Miller/012203_arrest.html

http://www.coloradoan.com/news/coloradoanpublishing/Miller/041503_lacylaw.html

I think both you and dukebound85 are a little too certain on your courses of action...You cannot predict what will happen in incredibly unlikely life-threatening situations - that's why they are called incredibly unlikely life-threatening situations. I know my first reaction to such a situation would be to flee the threat with wife/kids, keeping myself between them if necessary. It's hard to call the cops while running for your life too, if a threat presents itself the only viable options are generally either fight or flight.

There's a major difference between making yourself aware of potential dangers and being obsessed and paranoid. You can be the former without being the latter. I know of several people who are by no means gun aficionados but keep weapons for self-defense. They have undertaken several training programs about when not to use a firearm and how to generally get out of trouble before the situation gets really bad. They have also learned how to use a firearm when the weapon becomes a last resort.

I don't feel the need for a self defense weapon at this point, but I respect people's right to go that route if they wish. I also expect them to be responsible about it, as we should be in all aspects of our lives.

what ive bolded is exactly what ive been trying to say. as ive said training and having the confidence and knowledge of when to use a gun is important

[majordude]

...if they say they can kill and feel no regret for doing so.

Most of us have the mental faculties to make distinctions between murdering someone in a drive-by or killing someone uninvited in our house. Some deaths are murders and some are kills. Some are justified and some are not.

True pacifist are selfish and are more dangerous than many armed people. A pacifist would never have attempted to kill Hitler and yet, had one done so, it would have resulted in saving many more lives than the one he would have taken. So it isn't about life itself being precious, it is a pacifist's personal experience that is precious.

[yellow]

I guess I am falling into the "hope for the best, but prepare for the worst" camp? I don't really see anything wrong with that.

[Lord Blackadder]

I guess I am falling into the "hope for the best, but prepare for the worst" camp? I don't really see anything wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with it as far as I'm concerned.

[Spikeanator6982]

As mentioned, crime rates in the US have been going down for the most part. Course one city has defied that. Washington DC ever since the handgun ban was in place the crime went up every year but one. :rolleyes:

I don't see why a gun is any different than say, a wood saw. Accidents/misuse happen sure, but we don't ban the saw. we teach our kids to repect them. and how to use them(if they may ever use the saw). I personally, have the worst handwriting and spelling skills in the world, but I don;t try to tell the teacher it's the pencil's fault.

the main reason gun crime is (high) is because here in the US people who misuse guns, and do violent acts can plead away the sentence, or even simply not get punished for it. There was a report a while back about a guy who had like 17 accounts of violent acts against him before he did time. COME ON..thats HORRIBLE.

I also read and saw some video of people going into prisons and asking inmates what deterred them from say, mugging someone. Most of them were more afraid that the person they mugged(attacked) my have a gun, then they were of the cops. reason, they don't know when the citizen may use a gun to protect themselves, but they know the cops have a gun and will use it.

Something that bugs me is how the most media portrays guns. a shooting happens at said college, people are killed, etc. Makes huge news. Now take when a college shooting starts and a legally armed citizen stopped the perp and no one or few are killed/injured, that will never make front page news. be lucky to get a small paragraph in the last page of the newspaper. anyone ever hear about the shooting at virginia law school that was stopped when two students ran across campus got 2 rifles from their cars and stopped the bad guy? i bet know one who didnt look for it, or look for a shooting like it has. but if one wasnt stopped, you can see it even when you try not to see it.

[it5five]

and i bet you live in a nice part of the country. i do now currently but wasnt always the case when i used to live in more shady areas in atlanta


I live in Phoenix. Hardly a "nice" city, but not an awful place to live (in terms of crime. It is awful in every other way). I go to the more run-down parts of the city for art shows and concerts pretty often, and feel 100% safe walking around unarmed.

I don't see why a gun is any different than say, a wood saw.

I wish people would stop making analogies like this.

A saw has many functions, almost all of which do not result in the harm of another living thing. A gun has one function, and that function results in the harm of another being.

[Dagless]

Thank you it5five. It's reassuring to know not all US folk have itchy trigger fingers. I'm just worried you're in a minority.

As mentioned, crime rates in the US have been going down for the most part. Course one city has defied that. Washington DC ever since the handgun ban was in place the crime went up every year but one. :rolleyes:

How about in the UK where there is relatively very little gun crime. In my city alone I haven't read about a gun related incident for a long time. Knife crime, rape, burglary yes. Even Moss Side (notorious gun crime area) was in the news recently for the lowering gun crime incidents.
It's more an issue with the US mentality around guns most likely.

If someone was breaking into my house I'd call the police first and smash a window to set off the alarm. I'd rather have a few measly possessions stolen than anyone (no matter their problems) being hurt or killed.

I wish people would stop making analogies like this.

A saw has many functions, almost all of which do not result in the harm of another living thing. A gun has one function, and that function results in the harm of another being.
That will never happen since it appears people here ride their guns to work, cook dinner using a gun, fell trees using a gun...

[dukebound85]

I live in Phoenix. Hardly a "nice" city, but not an awful place to live (in terms of crime. It is awful in every other way). I go to the more run-down parts of the city for art shows and concerts pretty often, and feel 100% safe walking around unarmed.



I wish people would stop making analogies like this.

A saw has many functions, almost all of which do not result in the harm of another living thing. A gun has one function, and that function results in the harm of another being.

i use mine for target practice aka recreation and game hunting. of those two i say target practice accounts for 95% of mt shooting

i reccomend watching this video on hulu. very interesting
http://www.hulu.com/watch/25712/30-days-gun-nation#s-p1-so-i0

[it5five]

i use mine for target practice aka recreation and game hunting.

You use a handgun for game hunting? Is that common?

[Dagless]

i use mine for target practice aka recreation and game hunting. of those two i say target practice accounts for 95% of mt shooting

So that's practice for if you need to kill something, and killing something.

[dukebound85]

You use a handgun for game hunting? Is that common?

i use it for target practice. no i dont use it for hunting

i spoke about guns in general but for handguns it is 100% target practce

So that's practice for if you need to kill something, and killing something.

oh please. the way i use my handgun currently is the same way i paintball. for recreation.

what is wrong with being confident to use a handgun?

[it5five]

i use it for target practice. no i dont use it for hunting

i spoke about guns in general but for handguns it is 100% target practce

Well I have no problem with hunting rifles. I personally would never go hunting, but I won't stop others from doing so.

But on the topic of handguns: You use your handgun for target practice, yes. But in doing so you are ensuring that you can more easily kill or injure when or if you ever use your gun on another human.

what is wrong with being confident to use a handgun?

What is wrong with being confident enough with your safety to know that you will never need to use a gun in your entire life?

[Dagless]

what is wrong with being confident to use a handgun?

i would have no issue killing the dude who was attacking me

That; overconfidence.

[Lord Blackadder]

I wish people would stop making analogies like this.

A saw has many functions, almost all of which do not result in the harm of another living thing. A gun has one function, and that function results in the harm of another being.

You are wrong there. I have used firearms for years and have NEVER ONCE HARMED A LIVING THING.

I will not deny that firearms were originally designed for war and adapted to other uses (hunting, marksmanship) but trying to paint it as a tool of homicide first and foremost is turning a complex issue into an artificially simple one.

Now, I do agree with you to the extent that characterizing a firearm as "just another tool" is, like your characterization, not really correct. A firearms is neither "just a tool" or merely a machine for inflicting harm. Elements of both definitions apply to firearms.

[dukebound85]

if you read my posts, i said i would not feel guilty to kill someone if they were in the process of attacking me with the intent to cause serious injury or death.

.....

if someone was gonna stab me i would indeed protect myself with whatever means necessary

i also said i believe training is important to realize at what point you decide to use a gun or not in a situation. i also say i would hope to never be in a situation where i felt using a gun is required. i say that having the knowlege and confidence to use one is important if you are ever in that situation though

read my posts before you make absurd judgments on me



But on the topic of handguns: You use your handgun for target practice, yes. But in doing so you are ensuring that you can more easily kill or injure when or if you ever use your gun on another human.



What is wrong with being confident enough with your safety to know that you will never need to use a gun in your entire life?

read the bold of my post. you can NEVER guarantee your safety. does anyone ever want to be murdered? i think not

That; overconfidence.

you make no sense. i said confidence which means you have respect for the weapon, when to use it if necessary (hopefully never) and know your limits

are you against police who fire at criminals when they are getting shot at? by your logic you are but the police have training to handle situations of when to use their weapons. training is important

[Lord Blackadder]

Well I have no problem with hunting rifles. I personally would never go hunting, but I won't stop others from doing so.

But on the topic of handguns: You use your handgun for target practice, yes. But in doing so you are ensuring that you can more easily kill or injure when or if you ever use your gun on another human.

Everyone who undertakes target practice (including hunters) acquires the same ability. I have. What are you driving at?

What is wrong with being confident enough with your safety to know that you will never need to use a gun in your entire life?

Nothing. But you can't apply your personal situation to others and must accept the fact that other, very different, outlooks are equally valid. Even though you might totally disagree with them.

[Dagless]

Why did you do, and I'm just assuming since you didn't say, target shooting? That practice has made you a more proficient killer should you ever use it, under any circumstances (useful or otherwise).

A gun makes a bit of metal fly very very fast in a very straight line. There's no 2 ways about what they were made for and what they're still made for. Training just makes you better at using them.

[dukebound85]

Why did you do, and I'm just assuming since you didn't say, target shooting? That practice has made you a more proficient killer should you ever use it, under any circumstances (useful or otherwise).

A gun makes a bit of metal fly very very fast in a very straight line. There's no 2 ways about what they were made for and what they're still made for. Training just makes you better at using them.

you are really ignorant of gun uses if you only view them to hurt others.

yeas training makes you better at using them. your point?

like i said, i hope to never use one to protect myself but would be glad i could have the knowhow to use one if it came down to it.

[it5five]

Everyone who undertakes target practice (including hunters) acquires the same ability. I have. What are you driving at?



That a guns main function is to harm another, and target practice improves your ability to do so.

[Dagless]

you are really ignorant of gun uses if you only view them to hurt others.

yeas training makes you better at using them. your point?

Better at using a gun; better at injurying or killing someone.
It's when you have people who would kill an intruder or for just being attacked. Hell I was attacked by a small gang in the past, pulling out a gun would have just made the situation worse and would have escalated a simple mugging gone wrong into a potential murder scene.

[dukebound85]

That a guns main function is to harm another, and target practice improves your ability to do so.

to me a gun's main function is not for harm. get that through your head. you could say the same for fencing and learning how to swordfight but they do it for recreation

Better at using a gun; better at injurying or killing someone.
It's when you have people who would kill an intruder or for just being attacked. Hell I was attacked by a small gang in the past, pulling out a gun would have just made the situation worse and would have escalated a simple mugging gone wrong into a potential murder scene.

like i said, you need to know when to use a gun and when not too. if you are surrounded by a "gang" yea dont be stupid and pull out a gun as you couldnt protect yourself from everyone and wouldnt change the outcome

training teaches you to be level headed under situations

there are instances to use a weapon and times when not. realizing the differences is crucial

[naftalim]

Let me tell you something about guns. Without getting into too many details, I have a lot of experience with many weapons and in combat situations.

If you are considering buying a gun for purely recreational shooting, fine.

If you are considering it for self-defense, not a good idea. Regardless of whether you have kids in the house, in many places the laws state that you have to keep the guns locked in a safe place. So, if a situation arises that is so dangerous that you need the gun, will you have time to get it? Will you be calm enough to handle the gun properly so that its working and you don't shoot yourself or someone else in the house?

If the situation you are in is so dangerous that you got your gun, will you be able to actually shoot someone? It sounds easy and looks easy in the movies, but its not. Under severe stress, even people that are trained to shoot don't always react. This is assuming that you remember to take the safety off, that you have ammo or a clip in.
The bad guy who is so dangerous that you need to have your gun probably has far less qualms about hurting someone than you do. A second or two hesitation can cost you dearly.
Finally, lets say you do manage to shoot, and you miss, and the bullet goes through your window and potentially hits someone else, can you deal with the consequences?

[dukebound85]

Let me tell you something about guns. Without getting into too many details, I have a lot of experience with many weapons and in combat situations.

If you are considering buying a gun for purely recreational shooting, fine.

If you are considering it for self-defense, not a good idea. Regardless of whether you have kids in the house, in many places the laws state that you have to keep the guns locked in a safe place. So, if a situation arises that is so dangerous that you need the gun, will you have time to get it? Will you be calm enough to handle the gun properly so that its working and you don't shoot yourself or someone else in the house?

If the situation you are in is so dangerous that you got your gun, will you be able to actually shoot someone? It sounds easy and looks easy in the movies, but its not. Under severe stress, even people that are trained to shoot don't always react. This is assuming that you remember to take the safety off, that you have ammo or a clip in.
The bad guy who is so dangerous that you need to have your gun probably has far less qualms about hurting someone than you do. A second or two hesitation can cost you dearly.
Finally, lets say you do manage to shoot, and you miss, and the bullet goes through your window and potentially hits someone else, can you deal with the consequences?

good points but are you against training

like i said i use mine for recreation pursposes exclusively but do not see the harm in preparing for the worst either

with that, im done posting in this thread as it is well exhausting and you guys arent going to change my views and vice versa

[Applespider]

If neither of us have anything that will kill each other either of us will pick a fight. If you know I have something that you know will kill you you won't attack me. If I know that you don't have anything that will kill me, I will attack you. If you and I both can kill each other we won't even start.

Except that if neither of have anything that will kill one another, the worst that is likely to happen if one of us really loses our temper is a bloody nose or some loose teeth. And it's more likely that we'll just end up screaming at one another since most people are more comfortable with verbal rather than physical rage - particularly towards strangers.

I learned to shoot at school with rifles on a range and have done some clay-pigeon shooting. I quite enjoyed it and I have no problem with shooting as a target sport.

But I do object to the idea of having them as a 'deterrent' in the home since I believe they're far more likely to end up being used in accidents or suicides than in anger. And the more guns that are out there in private hands, the more shootings there are going to be, the more crooks will be able to get their hands on them. I don't think the public should be able to carry any potentially lethal weapon - guns or knives.

[63dot]

i think it could greatly depend on where you live

if you are in the inner city and many criminals have handguns and use them for crime, i can see the point

the person in mill valley or sausalito, ca or jupiter, fla. with a whole arsenal actually may not have the same justification for handguns

mr. john du pont, the heir of the family fortune, had a sherman tank, and by almost any yardstick, that is a little strange

and he would tread over to his neighbors' houses and ask, "do you want to play?"

that's not quite kosher in my book and i am not so sure that is covered under the right to bear arms :)

[Lord Blackadder]

That a guns main function is to harm another, and target practice improves your ability to do so.

You are assigning intent where there is none. You are capable of doing a lot of harmful things if you choose to. And many seemingly benign things have violent origins. Design does not equal intent. Where is individual responsibility and intent in your world?

Here's a direct, personal question for you. You don't know me (except as a forum member) so I'll have to ask you to take what I say about myself as true for the purposes of the question:

I have a number of firearms. I have no criminal record and satisfy all the legal requirements of firearms ownership. I have absolutely no criminal intent, have undertaken firearms safety training and follow all the guidelines of storage/transportation/use.

Do you trust me to own/use guns? Do you trust anyone? Why or why not? I don't care whether you think there is any purpose to them, or what the intent was behind their creation...must everything have a constructive purpose and a benign original intent in order to be accepted by our society?

[Iscariot]

IMO the fear the english have of guns seems far less healthy than our having them. I think we are more comfortable in seeing a person having one than the English do of just talking about it.

Oh, I don't know, the measure of healthy might be a little something like "does not get murdered to death". In which case the English fear of guns is more healthy by about a factor of 3. Since the English are about three times less likely to get murdered to death. If that wasn't clear. Because, you know, death is pretty unhealthy for ya. Might say it's terminal.

I have a number of firearms. I have no criminal record and satisfy all the legal requirements of firearms ownership. I have absolutely no criminal intent, have undertaken firearms safety training and follow all the guidelines of storage/transportation/use

Do you trust me to own/use guns? Do you trust anyone? Why or why not? I don't care whether you think there is any purpose to them, or what the intent was behind there creation...must everything have a constructive purpose and a benign original intent in order to be accepted by our society?

I don't think recognizing the very valid truth that a gun is a weapon and designed specifically to do harm necessarily means that one shouldn't own one, or that owning one is itself malicious. Someone used fencing as an example earlier -- is a sword no less a weapon? Or a compound bow? I love archery personally, but I'm under no illusions that even though I'm using a bow for a recreational purpose (I don't own one, I've rented/borrowed, and it's been far too long since I've done so) that I'm still using a weapon that is designed to intimidate, wound, maim or kill.

Claiming it to be a "tool" seems to me to be a far more dangerous mindset.

[aLoC]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to call a handgun a tool, it is clearly designed specifically to kill other people. That said, I see no reason to deny what a handgun is for. The unstated assumption of those who hate them is that killing other people is always bad, but clearly in self-defense it is not, as the Supreme Court repeatedly stated in the DC case.

Edit: I would accept that a long rifle could be a tool in a rural setting (protection of farm animals against wild animals, food, etc)

[Lord Blackadder]

Claiming it to be a "tool" seems to me to be a far more dangerous mindset.

I agree, to the extent that any weapon needs to be treated with respect. One must never lose sight of the fact that any weapon, if misused, can be extremely dangerous.

Of course, using tools can be very dangerous if done improperly, so the analogy does make some sense...ever used a table saw? Now THAT is a tool that demands every bit as much respect as a firearm, and can be every bit as dangerous.

[Iscariot]

...ever used a table saw?

We lost Mr. Johnny Cash's brother to a table saw.

[Lord Blackadder]

We lost Mr. Johnny Cash's brother to a table saw.

Case in point.

[coocooforcocoap]

In Nepal, the only people with handguns are a few criminals and communists, and a few military/police officers. If there were more, things would really be a mess. The weapon of handheld choice is a khurkuri:
http://www.claytor.com/photographs/images/picNepalVillagerKhukuriTomClaytor_small.jpg (http://www.claytor.com/photographs/images/picNepalVillagerKhukuriTomClaytor.jpg)
U don't want to mess with a man with a khurkuri that large. Law and order here is mostly done via civil group control, as there is little government to speak of. This works fairly well, unless outside forces interfere (fanatics from India / radicals from China). Taxes are low to Zero, and things work just fine albeit at the poverty level or below. If you want to start a militia, no problem, you can always smuggle arms over the border, that's not a problem. So one has to ask from the perspective of living outside of America, why with all those tax dollars and great police forces and the FBI and local sheriffs, would anyone need a handgun for protection or otherwise? The root of the problem should be examined. Good luck!
coocoo in kathmandu

[cycocelica]

I've always thought about owning a gun, even though I think its stupid to own one. I think guns are fascinating, much like you Yellow. But I know if I own one, it could be dangerous. I have a short temper and people piss me off a lot.

I would say buy one. You seem to enjoy them.

P.S. I do think there needs to be stricter regulation on guns.

[63dot]

You are assigning intent where there is none. You are capable of doing a lot of harmful things if you choose to. And many seemingly benign things have violent origins. Design does not equal intent. Where is individual responsibility and intent in your world?

Here's a direct, personal question for you. You don't know me (except as a forum member) so I'll have to ask you to take what I say about myself as true for the purposes of the question:

I have a number of firearms. I have no criminal record and satisfy all the legal requirements of firearms ownership. I have absolutely no criminal intent, have undertaken firearms safety training and follow all the guidelines of storage/transportation/use

Do you trust me to own/use guns? Do you trust anyone? Why or why not? I don't care whether you think there is any purpose to them, or what the intent was behind there creation...must everything have a constructive purpose and a benign original intent in order to be accepted by our society?

i don't have any firearms but for those who do have them, i wish they were careful like you

i used to do social work for drug addicts, sex workers, and drug dealers...sometimes the same person, and sadly it was incredibly easy in that ghetto to get a variety of guns, and for very cheap

the way many there walked around with pistols and stuck them in their jeans was a scary site, especially since many were doped up

it took a long time for the social workers to convince the neighborhood that we were not police officers

even one of our volunteers was an off duty cop and he also helped with the neighborhood and we passed out bleach, condoms, pamphlets on safer sex, and narcotics anonymous tracts, as well as a lot of literature from the county health department

much of the use of the guns in that neighborhood was between the drug lords of two major hispanic youth gangs and they were fighting over turf and an extremely lucrative business in heroin and meth

while it was rewarding, it was scary, and there seemed to be no easy solution to the glut of guns in that neighborhood

[glocke12]

Let me tell you something about guns. Without getting into too many details, I have a lot of experience with many weapons and in combat situations.

If you are considering buying a gun for purely recreational shooting, fine.

If you are considering it for self-defense, not a good idea. Regardless of whether you have kids in the house, in many places the laws state that you have to keep the guns locked in a safe place. So, if a situation arises that is so dangerous that you need the gun, will you have time to get it? Will you be calm enough to handle the gun properly so that its working and you don't shoot yourself or someone else in the house?

If the situation you are in is so dangerous that you got your gun, will you be able to actually shoot someone? It sounds easy and looks easy in the movies, but its not. Under severe stress, even people that are trained to shoot don't always react. This is assuming that you remember to take the safety off, that you have ammo or a clip in.
The bad guy who is so dangerous that you need to have your gun probably has far less qualms about hurting someone than you do. A second or two hesitation can cost you dearly.
Finally, lets say you do manage to shoot, and you miss, and the bullet goes through your window and potentially hits someone else, can you deal with the consequences?



Well said. Defending yourself with a firearm can be a life changing event. Even though I have a permit to carry, I seldom do carry just for those reasons. The only time I do is when I need to go into my local big city (Philadelphia), which is really a pretty dangerous place, Ive been mugged down there before in some of the safer areas, and I had a friend who was beaten to a pulp on south street there. Also, what may seem like a threat to you, may not seem like a threat in the eyes of the local D.A.

[yellow]

When I talk to the local gun store owner, it's interesting to see our difference in mindset.
From his perspective, he wants to sell us a handgun that is small and easily concealable*.
From my perspective, while I will get a conceal & carry permit for transporting, I have no interest what-so-ever in carrying a handgun on my person "for protection".

As far as I am concerned, it's one thing to be armed with a handgun in my home, on my land. It's another thing entirely to be carrying a handgun in public, under a shirt or in a purse. To me, that's just dangerous.
In public, I'll let the police do their job and carry firearms.
In private, (for the moment, all opinions are subject to change) I don't mind having a firearm in my home.

* Interesting Note: Give the amount of handguns that I KNOW the local gun store sells, coupled with what he says he sells (and I have no reason to disbelieve him), it's a REALLY scary concept to think of how many people out there are actually moving around in public with a handgun! Case in point:

His wife actually works for the same group I do, on the same floor of the same building. She's a face I recognized and said polite hellos to, but never knew. There's over 700 employees in our group, so it's not unreasonable to not know everyone. Fast forward 3 years and I walk into this new gun store in the next town over. And there she is. We introduce each other (she's quite friendly, as his her husband the owner) and eventually she shows me 2 firearms that she carries.. a S&W .38 and a large .357. So I'm thinking, man, she might even have this in her purse at work! Maybe left in her car... But damn! We're all computer nerds!

I guess you never know who might be "strapped". Before I was really interested in handgun ownership, it was a concept that I never considered. I think about it a lot more now though..

[it5five]

Do you trust me to own/use guns? Do you trust anyone? Why or why not? I don't care whether you think there is any purpose to them, or what the intent was behind there creation...must everything have a constructive purpose and a benign original intent in order to be accepted by our society?

No, I don't trust people to carry guns around in public with them. I don't know you, or what your temper is like (I'll assume you're well mannered), but anybody can find themselves in a situation where they get in a heated out of control argument. Nobody can say for sure how they'd react in such a situation, and carrying a lethal weapon (it's not a tool, it's a weapon) with you is only an invitation to escalate the argument.

[iJohnHenry]

It's the person, not the tool.

I could kill you with a ball-point pen, if I wished. But I won't.

Do you think we should take this "weapon" away from Charlie?? It is, after all, just slower and less accurate then the cordite-powered "rocks" that guns "throw"?? But just a deadly in some hands.

http://disney-smiles.com/peanuts3rock.jpg

[iJon]

I don't think I'll own a handgun whenever I start a family and have a house. I just don't think I would be that efficient. I do love shooting guns though and it is a blast.

On a side note though, if someone broke into my house I would not feel guilty one bit shooting someone in the kneecap to remind them of what can happen when you break into places.

jon

[63dot]

When I talk to the local gun store owner, it's interesting to see our difference in mindset.
From his perspective, he wants to sell us a handgun that is small and easily concealable*.
From my perspective, while I will get a conceal & carry permit for transporting, I have no interest what-so-ever in carrying a handgun on my person "for protection".

As far as I am concerned, it's one thing to be armed with a handgun in my home, on my land. It's another thing entirely to be carrying a handgun in public, under a shirt or in a purse. To me, that's just dangerous.
In public, I'll let the police do their job and carry firearms.
In private, (for the moment, all opinions are subject to change) I don't mind having a firearm in my home.

* Interesting Note: Give the amount of handguns that I KNOW the local gun store sells, coupled with what he says he sells (and I have no reason to disbelieve him), it's a REALLY scary concept to think of how many people out there are actually moving around in public with a handgun! Case in point:

His wife actually works for the same group I do, on the same floor of the same building. She's a face I recognized and said polite hellos to, but never knew. There's over 700 employees in our group, so it's not unreasonable to not know everyone. Fast forward 3 years and I walk into this new gun store in the next town over. And there she is. We introduce each other (she's quite friendly, as his her husband the owner) and eventually she shows me 2 firearms that she carries.. a S&W .38 and a large .357. So I'm thinking, man, she might even have this in her purse at work! Maybe left in her car... But damn! We're all computer nerds!

I guess you never know who might be "strapped". Before I was really interested in handgun ownership, it was a concept that I never considered. I think about it a lot more now though..

it really is scary

when i worked in er as a pt employee, i saw the results of small caliber concealable handguns

some people, including green wet behind the ears gun sales people, consider some small caliber guns not as dangerous, but if hit in certain places, you are dead, period

today's small and light handguns, which are more accurate than ever, and have very little kickback, are often erroneously thought to be "weak", but there is nothing more effective than a small caliber, non kickback ppk, glock, or beretta which could be concealed behind the palm of a large man's hand

the us army's special, yet secret delta force, uses such guns like this and are not using dirty harry .44 magnums

when someone is trained with a tiny ppk, to let's say clear a room of terrorists, that's one thing...but for some ordinary joe to be wearing his red or blue colors and carrying it, and others, in his pocket juiced up on some drug or alcohol, is a recipe for disaster

those were often the folks that came into er on my friday and saturday night shifts

and even in some cases, people shot themselves with those small guns....not as easy to shoot oneself with a long rifle, btw

i think there needs to be stricter laws on small, concealable, clip loading, low kickback handguns

but rifles are ok and not likely for someone to run around with one unnoticed

[Spikeanator6982]

So, if I practice shooting, I am training myself to kill better. OK..sure I can handle that, bc I do hunt. But I don't intend to hunt humans. But when I shoot an animal I want it to die swiftly and cleanly as possible.

IDk if guys have noticed..but criminals usually don't go to the local range and practice. they tend to point and shoot. Sure, there have been people well trained in use of fire arms that have misused them, but most (read all) criminals point and fire.

Training is going to help the person who's attacked stay calmer, and hopefully shoot better then the one who is attacking them. and thats if the gun is even fired. Shooting have literally been stopped when an innocent bystander pulled a gun on a shooter. shooter just stopped and was held till the cops arrived.

I am actually pretty surprised no one has boughten this up. Shooting is an Olympic sport. think they intend to kill anything?

and..sure, gun crime MAY(more 2 paras down) be dropping in the UK. but violent crimes are INCREASING faster then in the US. Someone just a while back admitted knifing, rape, etc were on the rise.

and I love how some people act like guns cause crime. you would think people at gun ranges and gun shows would be dieing left and right.

and one think to note when looking at statistics. The UKs stats tend to only include certain age groups and not the totals. and in the US gun stats tend to INCLUDE police shooting a criminal.

and..if guns were out of the picture. Home made bombs would be on the rise in usage. don't say bombs aren't that easy to aquire/make. bc, you can make one from pretty simple stuff and i am sure with knowing how to get black market guns, you could get bombs.

and YES, you do/ can use pistols to hunt. why couldn't you? It obviously requires people to be closer to the target and be able to shoot better. some for instance will carry a .22 pistol deer hunting for when they see a squirrel or rabbit. but obviously you can't hunt deer with a .22 pistol. but the bigger pistol calibers you can. Or you may use a pistol to finish a deer that you shot down, but isn't dead. As using a rifle at short range to finish a deer off isn't very safe and pistol cartridges tend to be cheaper.

anyone see the protests in UK? they took away pistols..and now they are/were trying to get rid of HUNTING.

I don't think I'll own a handgun whenever I start a family and have a house. I just don't think I would be that efficient. I do love shooting guns though and it is a blast.

On a side note though, if someone broke into my house I would not feel guilty one bit shooting someone in the kneecap to remind them of what can happen when you break into places.

jon

just remember, if he has a gun too, the knee cap will only distract him so long. and. the knee is a bit hard to hit(small) compared to the good old COM. (center of mass if anyone doesnt know)

[EricNau]

When I talk to the local gun store owner...
What guns are you considering?

[Beric]

No, I don't trust people to carry guns around in public with them. I don't know you, or what your temper is like (I'll assume you're well mannered), but anybody can find themselves in a situation where they get in a heated out of control argument. Nobody can say for sure how they'd react in such a situation, and carrying a lethal weapon (it's not a tool, it's a weapon) with you is only an invitation to escalate the argument.

"No one can say for sure". A favorite argument of liberals, when there's nothing else for them to say. "There's always the potential", they say.

Sorry for the ad hominem, but provide one instance of a legal owner pulling out a gun when an argument gets hot. Self-defense not included.

BTW, notice that those in favor of guns slightly outnumber those against, according to the poll. And this forum has about 5x more liberal than conservatives. Then tell me the majority of Americans believe in gun control.

[it5five]

BTW, notice that those in favor of guns slightly outnumber those against, according to the poll. And this forum has about 5x more liberal than conservatives. Then tell me the majority of Americans believe in gun control.

I've never claimed that the majority of Americans believe in gun control. In fact, in this thread I even admitted I am in the minority in this country when it comes to this issue.

But even still, you did your math wrong. According to this poll, 48 people either own a gun, used to own a gun, or want to own a gun. 61 people have no interest in owning a gun, think they are dangerous, or vehemently object to handgun ownership. But taking into account the likely non-American voters, I'm sure you are right.

Sorry for the ad hominem, but provide one instance of a legal owner pulling out a gun when an argument gets hot. Self-defense not included.

Concealed-Carry Permit owner pulls gun... (http://www.vindy.com/news/2008/jun/12/grandfather-accused-of-gun-threat-at-ballfield/)

There's one, and it was found in just a few minutes. I'd look up more but I need to go get ready for work now. If you still want more examples I can post some more within the next day or so.

[Desertrat]

it5five, I don't see where it's worth the effort. No way whatsoever that all CHL folks are perfect angels. They're human.

What's germane to the behavior issue is that the cops publicly state that as an identifiable group, CHL people are the least trouble for any criminal misbehavior of any sort. That's from press releases from both the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Texas Department of Public Safety, anyhow...

What might be of relevance to the issue of the alleged dangers of CHL people carrying handguns is the history: Prior to the passage of laws on the subject in modern times (1990-ish onward), beginning with Florida and continuing on through the additional twenty-some-odd states, there was an unending protest about the dangers to the public. "Blood in the gutters!" "Old west gunfights!" And on and on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

None of it happened. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

One thing that did happen was the introduction of an uncertainty factor for some sorts of crimes. In Florida, muggings declined. Also in Florida, car-jackings declined among residents' cars; increased among rental cars leaving airports, and among tourists. Interviews with crooks spoke to this uncertainty factor; people getting off airplanes didn't have guns, and tourists were unlikely to have guns.

But for the average person just minding their own business around town, legal CHL folks are not worth any bother of concern...

[63dot]

it5five, I don't see where it's worth the effort. No way whatsoever that all CHL folks are perfect angels. They're human.

What's germane to the behavior issue is that the cops publicly state that as an identifiable group, CHL people are the least trouble for any criminal misbehavior of any sort. That's from press releases from both the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Texas Department of Public Safety, anyhow...

What might be of relevance to the issue of the alleged dangers of CHL people carrying handguns is the history: Prior to the passage of laws on the subject in modern times (1990-ish onward), beginning with Florida and continuing on through the additional twenty-some-odd states, there was an unending protest about the dangers to the public. "Blood in the gutters!" "Old west gunfights!" And on and on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

None of it happened. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

One thing that did happen was the introduction of an uncertainty factor for some sorts of crimes. In Florida, muggings declined. Also in Florida, car-jackings declined among residents' cars; increased among rental cars leaving airports, and among tourists. Interviews with crooks spoke to this uncertainty factor; people getting off airplanes didn't have guns, and tourists were unlikely to have guns.

But for the average person just minding their own business around town, legal CHL folks are not worth any bother of concern...

believing in the right to bear arms, but some gun control on pistols, i am interested in what long term studies will show twenty, or fifty years from now

i am not scared of the certified gun instructor like my good friend, but more of the gangbanger who uses it in a totally different way

but my guess is that the gangbanger gets his/her gun illegally and won't be affected by gun control

perhaps far stricter penalties for gun crimes is the answer and even some small city police departments have replaced their single action and revolver colts and .38 specials with more expensive, european clip loading handguns and assault rifles commonly used by the special forces community

when mobsters had machine guns during prohibition, the fbi were only armed with single shot rifles and handguns/pistols

...but later the fbi then became more effective when they started using the same thompsons as the gangsters

[NC MacGuy]

I have handguns and do enjoy shooting and target practice. I've had guns for near 30 years. I've yet to kill anyone and to my knowledge, haven't committed suicide and all children & wife are accounted for. I also use shotguns and shoot clay.

Guns are a responsibility and should be treated with respect. Trigger locks, safes, keeping ammo locked and away from firearm are good ideas if owning one.

Yellow -there is a sporting club in Durham that has an outdoor handgun range, skeet and fishing that is very reasonably priced.

[yellow]

What guns are you considering?

I really want ($$$):

H&K USP .40
Sig Sauer P229 .40

I may get ($$):
Springfield Arms XD .40

I'll probably get ($):
S&W Model 638 Revolver .38

Yellow -there is a sporting club in Durham that has an outdoor handgun range, skeet and fishing that is very reasonably priced.

Yeah, I looked at them. I think we're going to head out to Greensboro to Handgunners and take a beginner safety class and rent a few different styles to get a feel for them before we buy.

[Desertrat]

"i am interested in what long term studies will show twenty, or fifty years from now"

63dot, why would they be any different than the studies of long term patterns that have already been made? Honest people are still gonna be harmless. Crooks are still gonna go out and do crime of all sorts.

And remember, there has been a steady increase in governmental controls on the acquisition of firearms of any sort, by any person. Hasn't affected crime rates. The controls only affect the people to whom they not need be applied in the first place.

Come on over to http://www.thehighroad.org. Register and go to the Legal forum. Start a thread: "What is the sequence of gun-control laws in the U.S., during the 20th century?" Could do that here, of course, but that's just more off-topic stuff.

[yojitani]

I've never really been interested in owning a gun of any sort. I've fired all kinds of guns at ranges - I even won a contest shooting antique guns! - and it was fun, just not something I'd want to spend money on (I went to ranges with friends and family - they paid!). Still, I firmly believe in personal liberty so if people want to own guns, that's fine with me. I just wish those same people would let me cultivate marijuana (not that I do, I just would :D) in my backyard.

[it5five]

it5five, I don't see where it's worth the effort. No way whatsoever that all CHL folks are perfect angels. They're human.

That was the point I was trying to make to Beric. He was the one making CHL people seem completely innocent, sane people that never make mistakes.

[Lord Blackadder]

I really want ($$$):

H&K USP .40
Sig Sauer P229 .40

I may get ($$):
Springfield Arms XD .40

I'll probably get ($):
S&W Model 638 Revolver .38

I like the H&K USP series, though I would lean towards a .45ACP myself. But they aren't cheap. I shot a Sig P225 in 9mm once and thought it was a very nice weapon.

I'm into collecting so my interests lie in older guns, though some interesting surplus semi-autos are on the market these days, like the Browning Hi-Power, CZ-52, CZ-82, Makarov.

[majordude]

I like the H&K USP series, though I would lean towards a .45ACP myself. But they aren't cheap.

If you have a firing range near you, they might have guns for rent. You can try shooting different guns and rounds and wee what you like best.

I found that Glocks aim high for me, for example.

[Lord Blackadder]

If you have a firing range near you, they might have guns for rent. You can try shooting different guns and rounds and wee what you like best.

I found that Glocks aim high for me, for example.

Oh, I've tried them a few times. I just can't afford them and am not in the market for a new-type semi-auto anyway. :)

Glocks are well made and efficient designs but I find them boring. They make an excellent service sidearm, of course, which is what they are for. Their relatively light weight makes them handle differently from older all-metal semi-autos.

[yellow]

Originally, I was set on the .45ACP version of the USP.
But.. the price of the ammo. ouch.

[dmr727]

I really want ($$$):
H&K USP .40
Sig Sauer P229 .40
.

I own the same USP in compact (with the LEM trigger), and have a P226R in .40 as well. Both great guns, although I tend to prefer my Sig - it just fits my hands better. It was also more accurate 'out of the box'. The USP's trigger was very, very tight, and took about 200 rounds for it to loosen up. But once it loosened up, it's been great. It's very well balanced.

Next for me is a Kimber 1911, and I've been toying with the idea of a Glock 20, but 10mm ammo is very expensive. ;)

[yellow]

Cool! At this point, I'm finding it hard to make the time to drive up to the Sheriff's office (it's 25 minutes in the opposite direction that I travel every day) for a permit application. No rush on this.

Mainly because I had 2 flat tires on Sunday and 4 new tires kind of ate into my handgun budget. :( ;)

[Lord Blackadder]

.45ACP is more money, though I collect mostly high-power rifles so I'm used to dollar-per-round prices. For low cost you can't beat 9x19mm of course, and the performance of that round is well proven.

If you are keeping a weapon for home defense, conventional wisdom is to choose a high-quality (and thus expensive) brand and type of ammunition and use only that type for practice and carry. This makes you completely familiar with the handling and performance of the weapon/ammo combination for maximum safety - in other words, you are totally confident that the weapon puts rounds where you want them to go and it goes bang every time you pull the trigger, without jamming/stovepiping etc.

If you are just plinking for fun a big case of military surplus or cheap brand (such as Wolf) ammo works just fine.

[Desertrat]

Use the cheapest stuff for practice and plinking. Use relatively inexpensive full-power loads to be familiar with the feel, and then have a small amount of the dedicated self-defense (expensive) ammo for that purpose.

Dry-firing won't hurt modern handguns, and it certainly helps "muscle memory", the automatic reflexes of safe gun-handling and shooting.

[kdum8]

That's borderline disingenuous of you to say.

Please don't forget that the US has approximately 6 TIMES the population of England, and therefore probably has (at least) 6 TIMES the amount of "idiots" spread out of a territory that is 75 TIMES larger (in square miles).

This should not be used as reasoning to own a handgun, but it's hardly fair to compare "idiots" on a 1:1 scale.

Just to clear this up

US Population: 304,840,000 (2008 estimate)
UK Population: 60,587,300 (mid 2006) (source Wikipedia)

so the US population is 5 times, not 6, bigger than the UK.

Hailing from the UK the idea of the general public having access to handguns is an anathema to me. Frankly really not a good idea in my opinion. But if the majority of the people in the US are for it, then that is their right.

Homicide Rates 2008 per 100,000:

US: 5.7
UK: 2.03
England & Wales: 1.62
(excludes N.Ireland and the disproportionally pugnacious Scots).
Canada: 1.85
New Zealand: 1.29
Australia: 1.28

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate#2000s

[Desertrat]

kdum8, all that's irrelevant, regardless of what it means to any individual person. The issue is self-defense, so who cares what other folks do or don't do? "The odds are low, but the stakes are high," as the fella said...

Actually, if the government was serious about reducing gun crime, it would merely end this silly War On Some Drugs. We could then retreat to the somnolence on the issue that was "the way it was" back sixty or seventy years ago...

'Rat

[Iscariot]

"The odds are low, but the stakes are high," as the fella said...

Then the "fella" was very foolish, and this is a misleading and scaremongering soundbite. The odds of being struck by lightning are low and the stakes high, but do you walk around in a rubber suit? Ever missed a flu shot? Do you drive without a roll cage? Fly commercially without a parachute (or jetpack)? Eat food without a friend standing by to perform the Heimlich? Cross a road without erecting a barrier? Swim without a shark knife? Light candles only in the presence of a fire fighter? Do you keep an antidote for every (local) venomous animal, a splint for every bone, a defibrillator, and every antibody, anti-fungal and anti-parasite? Remember, the ambulance is just as many minutes away as the police.

Own a handgun because it's your right if you so choose, but stop with the fearful and paranoid "the bad guys will getcha" rhetoric. Maybe Americans would kill a whole lot less of each other if they spent less time being so afraid of each other.

[Dagless]

Homicide Rates 2008 per 100,000:

US: 5.7
UK: 2.03
England & Wales: 1.62
(excludes N.Ireland and the disproportionally pugnacious Scots).
Canada: 1.85
New Zealand: 1.29
Australia: 1.28

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate#2000s

Out of interest do the countries with lower homicide rates also carry a similar gun law to the UK?
5.7 seems an awful lot for such a developed country.

[kdum8]

Out of interest do the countries with lower homicide rates also carry a similar gun law to the UK?
5.7 seems an awful lot for such a developed country.

That's the interesting thing, not generally. The UK has exceptionally strict control over guns, (mandatory 5 year prison sentence for the possession of a handgun); but in Canada, NZ and Aus guns laws are a lot less draconian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

In Switzerland by law each household maintains an assault rifle and ammunition as part of a military obligation. And yet, while having one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, Switzerland also has one of the lowest firearm related crime rates in the world.

I shall leave it to others to discuss why. That is a minefield.

[yellow]

Just to clear this up

US Population: 304,840,000 (2008 estimate)
UK Population: 60,587,300 (mid 2006) (source Wikipedia)

so the US population is 5 times, not 6, bigger than the UK.


Uhhh... I said England. Not UK. Last I checked, England was not the UK.

Just to clear this up. ;)



Homicide Rates 2008 per 100,000:

US: 5.7
UK: 2.03


This statistic means to me that folks in the UK are 1.5 times MORE likely to be killed than those in the US! Check my math:

Seems to me, folks in the UK need more guns!! :D

n Switzerland by law each household maintains an assault rifle and ammunition as part of a military obligation. And yet, while having one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, Switzerland also has one of the lowest firearm related crime rates in the world.

Being of Swiss decent, I like to think I know a bit of maybe why.
Like Israel, there is a mandatory requirement that male citizens between 19-30 serve in the military. This makes for a lot of (well trained) gun owners in a relatively small population. Add to that a citizenry with a low level of poverty, stuffed with cheese and chocolate... ;)

[63dot]

I live in the US. Handguns are cheap and plentiful.
For as long as I can rememeber I have been fascinated by firearms. Yes, I was that little boy that drew guns on everything.
As if Godzilla really needs guns on his head, arms, and tail. :rolleyes:
But I've never owned any firearms. I've shot some handguns, some assault weapons, and a shotgun a few times, but have never actually owned a firearm of any type. Sounds strange for someone who knows quite a bit about them. But there it is. I freely admit, I really liked shooting. It's quite challenging and of course has a hint of danger. But the obvious concerns kept me away from purchasing any. Now for some reason.. my thoughts have changed and I am seriously considering purchasing a handgun. There's been no "event" that caused me to change my mind. I just.. changed my mind. Ostensibly, it's for home protection, but I'm more inclined to want to fire it at a range.
We have no kids, so safety concerns of that sort is not an issue.

So, do you own a handgun*? Why or why not?
Was your mind changed one way or the other about ownership? Why?

There's certainly a lot to weigh here and I'd like to hear as much feedback as possible.

Thanks.






*: Handguns only please.
I understand that it's good protection when hunting in areas with large, dangerous animals (bears, pumas, boars, iPhone Forum Users, etc), but let's face it. No one is going out to hunt primarily with a handgun.

I used to sell guns and one very popular gun we had was a very short nose rifle and a very short shotgun, both for home protection.

Many don't like handguns because more than protection, their main design was for the ability to be concealed. Even an extremely short rifle or shotgun are far more accurate than a handgun.

A great show on the history and purpose/use of firearms is Wild West Tech on the History Channel.

The earliest small handguns were notoriously inaccurate, even for a practiced shooter, but it was a great tool for being able to walk into a bank undetected. Much larger handguns, more akin to today's small rifles, had the accuracy and would be more like what a sheriff would carry.

What bugs me is when somebody has an extremely light and small ppk or Glock, and then say they want to use it for target practice. I have always steered my customers to firearms with longer, more accurate barrels. Very small guns should be banned.

Some gun fanatics even get an illegal all plastic Glock, used by special forces and some undercover airport security, and there is no justification or excuse for having something like that. The only Glocks and others, that are legal, only have some plastic but are largely metal. People used to ask about guns which could avoid metal detectors and I had to remind them that they were in a sporting goods store. :)

[kdum8]

Uhhh... I said England. Not UK. Last I checked, England was not the UK.

Just to clear this up. ;)


Fair enough I'll give you that one. Most Americans seem to use the two terms interchangeably though, hence my note. And why would you leave out Scotland and N. Ireland anyway? I live in a country called the UK. There is no sovereign nation called England, it is an integral part of the UK.



This statistic means to me that folks in the UK are 1.5 times MORE likely to be killed than those in the US! Check my math:

Seems to me, folks in the UK need more guns!! :D



the figures show per capita homicide rates, so how do you figure that?

[yellow]

Fair enough I'll give you that one. Most Americans seem to use the two terms interchangeably though, hence my note.

Thanks. But I didn't.


And why would you leave out Scotland and N. Ireland anyway? I live in a country called the UK. There is no sovereign nation called England, it is an integral part of the UK.

Why wouldn't I? I was using England (the largest portion of the UK population) as an example, in a one-country:one-country ratio.


the figures show per capita homicide rates, so how do you figure that?

Yes, my initial math is off. It's not 1.5 times more likely. Your figures mean (to me, probably incorrectly):

for every 100,000 people in the UK, 2.03 will die via homicide.
for every 100,000 people in the US, 5.70 will die via homicide.

Give your quotes statistics for population, divided by 100,000:

UK: 60,587,300 / 100,000 = 605.9
US: 304,840,000 / 100,000 = 3048.4

This are amount groups of 100,000 people, mind you. This is where my math probably goes funny.. When the number of homicides per 100,000 is divided by the amount of groups of 100,000 people, and express it in terms of a percentage, you get:

2.03 / 605.9 = 0.335%
5.70 / 3048.4 = 0.187%

In my mind, each person in a grouping of 100,000 citizens has a 0.34% chance of being killed (homicide) in the UK, compared to the lower 0.18% chance as a citizen in the US. Does that mean that I have a 56% higher chance, per capita, of being killed in the UK?

[kdum8]

Yes, my initial math is off. It's not 1.5 times more likely. Your figures mean (to me, probably incorrectly):

for every 100,000 people in the UK, 2.03 will die via homicide.
for every 100,000 people in the US, 5.70 will die via homicide.

Give your quotes statistics for population, divided by 100,000:

UK: 60,587,300 / 100,000 = 605.9
US: 304,840,000 / 100,000 = 3048.4

This are amount groups of 100,000 people, mind you. This is where my math probably goes funny.. When the number of homicides per 100,000 is divided by the amount of groups of 100,000 people, and express it in terms of a percentage, you get:

2.03 / 605.9 = 0.335%
5.70 / 3048.4 = 0.187%

In my mind, each person in a grouping of 100,000 citizens has a 0.34% chance of being killed (homicide) in the UK, compared to the lower 0.18% chance as a citizen in the US. Does that mean that I have a 56% higher chance, per capita, of being killed in the UK?



You don't need to do any Maths at all. That has been done for you. It is a PER hundred thousand figure, meaning that it takes into account the differing populations already. So you can already compare the numbers directly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts_per_million
To do the calculation that you did would require the actual number of murders in each country. The hard work has already been done!

Also since you want to use England only then you should quite the figure as 1.62 homicides per 100,000. The US is 5.70

Thus:

5.70/1.62 = 3.5 I.e. you are 3.5 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in England and Wales. Done.

Like I said before, your country, you get to vote on it, and you can choose to have lethal weapons if you wish. But don't be surprised if there are consequences.
Guess you guys are just significantly more violent than the Swiss who seem to be able act responsibly with their guns.

[Dagless]

I shall leave it to others to discuss why. That is a minefield.

Probably because they're not as trigger happy as other gun-totting countries.

From my own time there, as a whole the country seems more relaxed.

[wonga1127]

Guess you guys are just significantly more violent than the Swiss who seem to be able act responsibly with their guns.
Thats exactly what it is and exactly what most pro-gun control politicians don't understand. Guns are weapons yes, but so are cars, and screwdrivers, and hammers, and knives, and pencils, and anything else sharp, pointy, or explosive. More guns doesn't make a country more violent, nor does it give you a better chance of getting murdered in the said country. What does is the attitudes of the people there.

[kdum8]

Thats exactly what it is and exactly what most pro-gun control politicians don't understand. Guns are weapons yes, but so are cars, and screwdrivers, and hammers, and knives, and pencils, and anything else sharp, pointy, or explosive. More guns doesn't make a country more violent, nor does it give you a better chance of getting murdered in the said country. What does is the attitudes of the people there.

The other items in your list could be used as weapons, sure. But then so could nearly anything. The point is that guns make killing someone much easier. A gun can be fired in the heat of the moment, and then someone is dead. Killing someone with a pencil would take a sustained and serious effort. Are you really advocating that it is OK for someone to walk down the street, in public, with a weapon that can kill someone by pulling a simple lever? Because this is what we are talking about. It's crazy. The frontier has been tamed already. Why don't we have the right to own semtex? Or Assault rifles? Because they are considered too dangerous which is exactly what handguns are. I realise that people who feel that owning guns is part of a "tradition", but really come on. Most police aren't responsible enough to handle guns, let alone the general public.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" the NRA once said. Somehow though I think the gun kinda helps....

[Desertrat]

All-plastic Glock? As in plastic barrel? Plastic springs for recoil, firing pin and magazine? Plastic firing pin? 'Scuse me? Polymer frame and slide, yeah. "All Plastic" is Hollywood.

Don't take my word for it. Ask Tamara at http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/

In her years of working at Coal Creek Armory, she's learned far more about handguns than I--and I've been messing with the silly things for the best part of sixty years, from back when a new Colt Woodsman cost me $35. Then, later on, IPSC and all that happiness, back in the '80s. :)

[iJohnHenry]

Have you not heard of ceramics???

That's where the new wave is coming from.

For me, sure, I would love to be able to carry a side-arm. I know how to use one.

Fortunately, even though my town is somewhat rough, it has nothing on the next one to the West, Toronto.

[Desertrat]

One problem with stuff like ceramics and the light weight that would be possible is recoil. Any serious self-defense cartridge is going to have punch at both ends. Probably a worst-case among current fads is the titanium snubbie in .357. Yeah, it's light and easy to carry, but control for subsequent shots requires both training and a strong wrist.

[iJohnHenry]

Yes, but people interested in these types of weapons are not bothered by recoil, or even a second shot.

Keep that in mind.

[synth3tik]

Guns are stupid, people have taken the "right to bare arms" why out of context.


errr. seriously

[iJohnHenry]

It's oft been said, everyone has the right to carry a musket. :p

[Desertrat]

"Yes, but people interested in these types of weapons are not bothered by recoil, or even a second shot."

Gotta disagree. These are generally bought for self-defense, and commonly as carry-guns. At $500 and $600, they're not casual on-the-street guns. I see folks buy them, shoot some practice and then trade them in for some lesser-cartridge gun, or an all-steel gun that weighs more. Or, guys buy them for the wife and she becomes afraid of it because of the recoil.

Anybody whose done any training has learned that you don't quit shooting until the threat is stopped. Shooting once and stopping to look is just as stupid as throwing one punch at some guy and stepping back to look: You get your butt handed to you.

[iCantwait]

other.....
I'm not a red-neck
I'm Australian:D

[63dot]

All-plastic Glock? As in plastic barrel? Plastic springs for recoil, firing pin and magazine? Plastic firing pin? 'Scuse me? Polymer frame and slide, yeah. "All Plastic" is Hollywood.

Don't take my word for it. Ask Tamara at http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/

In her years of working at Coal Creek Armory, she's learned far more about handguns than I--and I've been messing with the silly things for the best part of sixty years, from back when a new Colt Woodsman cost me $35. Then, later on, IPSC and all that happiness, back in the '80s. :)

My former boss was special forces turned CIA and like I said before, I was a gun salesman.

These things exist. Heck, watch the history channel. Read "Inside Delta Force" by retired Command Sgt. Major Haney, who is also a consultant for the top TV show, "The Unit". He belonged to a unit the U.S. Army denies exists, called SFOD 1, or Delta Force.

Read about the SAS. They are the special forces that the U.S. Navy Seals (Team 6), U.S. Army Rangers, Marine Recon. and direct-line to President Delta Force modeled themselves after.

When they say plastic, we are not talking about plastic squirt guns type of plastic, but composite, non-metal materials which are becoming more common in special forces weaponry.

It is the same material that SWAT teams are using in their latest body armor that can stop teflon bullets. A great show on Mythbusters highlighted that material which was bulletproof to everything.

High performance race car engines are now experimenting with this really high impact plastic for lightweight, as strong as steel engines. NASCAR has already experimented with this incredible technology. Tumi luggage and wallets use this space age material.

[63dot]

other.....
I'm not a red-neck
I'm Australian:D

I may not be Australian, but I am a redneck.

At the same time, I am a hard core democrat passionate about the entire platform and against very small handguns. I was sick from high school the day Reagan got shot and I actually saw the thing live. At that point I saw that rifles and shotguns are OK, but a handgun, especially a 6 oz. .22 caliber pistol, is not designed for anything better than assassinating people. It has been history's most common weapon for offing heads of state due to its range, accuracy, and concealability.

Handguns are made to get close, and off a person.

[KingYaba]

If you are keeping a weapon for home defense...

... choose a shotgun. Cheaper and more powerful. :cool:

[yellow]

You don't need to do any Maths at all. That has been done for you. It is a PER hundred thousand figure, meaning that it takes into account the differing populations already. So you can already compare the numbers directly.

Ah, I get it now. Thanks for the clarification!

[Iscariot]

A great show on Mythbusters highlighted that material which was bulletproof to everything.

Would you happen to know the episode (or myth they were busting)?

[63dot]

Would you happen to know the episode (or myth they were busting)?

I do watch as many episodes as I can. I can't tell you what season, if it was a re-run, or if it is the current season. But I think it was around the time they showed that you could not blow up your stomach on cola and pop-rocks. :)

It was definitely after the episode where they tried to float a sunken boat with the use of just ping pong balls.

I did see a similar show on ancient technology on the History Channel. It had to do with how a tightly "woven" material could stop missiles like arrows and spears. For some warriors in the ancient world, the use of of dense leather or metal shield/body armor was used to stop missiles like arrows and spears. But either the Greeks or the Romans came up with the idea of using a relatively soft, lightweight cloth, and used the idea of a tight weave, sometimes used with hard objects sewn in, to stop a missile.

What made this concept revolutionary, like our modern woven bulletproof vests, is that the ancient woven gear was light and that could be a great advantage in a battle.

Most people, just from using common sense would think that an inch thick vest of steel, iron, copper, bronze would be the right tool to stop an arrow or early bullet. But the idea of a tightly woven fabric, which is much lighter and more flexible, is now known to have dated back to antiquity.

Many inventions we thought we came up with in the 20th century were used in a more primitive format in the Greek and Roman empire.

[63dot]

... choose a shotgun. Cheaper and more powerful. :cool:

Absolutely. And if ever the Federal Government bans all handguns, or new handgun purchases of handguns under a certain size, then the shotgun will be the only legal and cheap option.

And like KingYaba pointed out, a shotgun is cheaper. At least from the standpoint of Big 5, where I worked, and where that corporation sold more guns than any company I can think of, the shotgun or smaller rifle is the best option.

I used to make the argument that rifles and shotguns had more stopping power, but truthfully, at under 20 feet, you do not want to get hit in the torso (where the shot will usually end up) with a small bullet, large bullet, or shotgun shell. A .22 dead center will stop anybody and so will a shotgun. I just don't like how easy it is to conceal some .22 models I have seen. Too many of those things can end up in the street and there have been some ultra small 9 mm. handguns out there that are tiny, too. That is what scares me.

A option to outright banning all handguns is to make all handguns have a certain minimum weight and barrel length. And if somebody decides to saw it off and carry it around, make that a felony, and at the very least a misdemeanor.

I have seen some "ladies" handguns which were "supposedly" designed for "small" hands and the .357 and 9 mm. ammo in them actually made them the ultimate close quarter assassin weapon. Yes, a real assasin can kill just as easily with a .22 round, but a .357 or 9 mm. round gives slightly less skilled assassins that ability to get close and make a kill or a hit.

John Hinckley Jr. may have suffered from schizophrenia, but he planned his attack on the President very methodically and his use of a small handgun which had very little kickback gave him a chance to get many rounds off before the highly trained secret service had a chance to react. It was by pure chance that Reagan survived. One inch closer to his heart and he would have been killed instantly. Many a good shot in a crowded, fluid situation would not have been able to make head and body shots like he did. Hinckley definitely did his research.

Imagine others like him. The "small" handgun made it all that more possible.

[Desertrat]

I note just in passing that Hinckley broke bunches of laws in his journey to Reagan...Laws are punitive, not preventive.

"Teflon" bullets? As in teflon-coated .45ACP bullets? The only purpose of the teflon was as a protection of the barrel from the steel of the pointed bullet. Teflon coating instead of copper. No magic involved. It was just an effort to improve on the poor penetrative quality of the 230-grain round-nosed bullet when cops had to deal with car doors and windshields. Most gunshops had them in the "Police sales only" department, what few shops actually stocked them.

There are NO all-polymer or polymer-and-ceramic handguns on the civilian market. What any SF, SAS or other such entities have aren't available to the gangbanger crowd--or to any of us posting here. IOW, irrelevant.

Some lady once asked a Texas Ranger why he carried a .45. "Because they don't make a .46," was the answer.

A 1911 is less comfortable for concealed carry for most people than a Model 36, however. I carry a relatively small handgun when I carry concealed, mostly because I can't carry a cop.

'Rat

[63dot]

I note just in passing that Hinckley broke bunches of laws in his journey to Reagan...Laws are punitive, not preventive.

"Teflon" bullets? As in teflon-coated .45ACP bullets? The only purpose of the teflon was as a protection of the barrel from the steel of the pointed bullet. Teflon coating instead of copper. No magic involved. It was just an effort to improve on the poor penetrative quality of the 230-grain round-nosed bullet when cops had to deal with car doors and windshields. Most gunshops had them in the "Police sales only" department, what few shops actually stocked them.

There are NO all-polymer or polymer-and-ceramic handguns on the civilian market. What any SF, SAS or other such entities have aren't available to the gangbanger crowd--or to any of us posting here. IOW, irrelevant.

Some lady once asked a Texas Ranger why he carried a .45. "Because they don't make a .46," was the answer.

A 1911 is less comfortable for concealed carry for most people than a Model 36, however. I carry a relatively small handgun when I carry concealed, mostly because I can't carry a cop.

'Rat

the gangbangers, i hope, don't have the special weapons

hey, 'rat, chuck norris carries a .46, dammit :)

[kjs862]

I don't own a handgun, but I do shoot with a few rifles. I have no need for a concealed weapon.

[63dot]

I don't own a handgun, but I do shoot with a few rifles. I have no need for a concealed weapon.

I am with you on that one 100% percent.

I am a huge fan of military history, but in no way would I want an F-16 or an M1A1 tank. I would also not want chemical weapons or a WW II pilot's colt .45 pistol.

I do admit to a lust for an old P-51 fighter plane though. :)

[gibbz]

While I don't particularly object to handgun ownership (unless there are kids in the house), your timing is quite coincidental with this news story I just read: Surprising fact: Half of gun deaths are suicides (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCxcKGSQ7r7ORZNySqR3F0kP5rOgD91KMM180). ...An interesting article, with pretty surprising facts, in my opinion. That said, in no way am I trying to discourage you from purchasing a gun, just encouraging you to be an informed and conscious gun owner.

If you want one, go ahead and buy one. Just be careful. :)

I have been trained to use handguns and rifles. I have been hunting and target shooting. However, your link is very apropos. I have withheld from owing a gun because I have a fear that I will someday become depressed and shoot myself. As utterly off base as that must sound, I have experienced a few suicides with friends and family. I would just rather not have that option available. I am not opposed to others owning guns, if they follow safety precautions.

[iJohnHenry]

A 12 gauge shotgun is a good choice.

You can use buckshot to scare the **** out of near do wells, or rifled slugs to cut the really bad guys in half.

Many choices.

[63dot]

A 12 gauge shotgun is a good choice.

You can use buckshot to scare the **** out of near do wells, or rifled slugs to cut the really bad guys in half.

Many choices.

Shotgun? Can't stand up against my weapon of choice!

I still love my North American P-51 D.
414 MPH.
Six .50 cal macine guns.
Two 500 lb. bombs.
Self sealing fuel tank.
And outmaneuvers the Zero or ME-109 and has more range than some similar period bombers. :)

If I stay on this forum too long, I will start lusting after that darn thing and try and find ways to raise money for one. I am at the Concours d'Elegance car show and some of those cars are worth far more than WW II aircraft.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I hope some war historian enthusiasts, and hunting enthusiasts also share a fondness for classic cars. My wife and I saw a prototype Shelby but with a 1964 1/2 Mustang body. Pretty decent, but not perfect shape. 100k. schwing.

[Desertrat]

Superman wears a Chuck Norris cape...

I refuse to watch the Barrett-Jackson auctions except once in a while. I see too many cars of the sorts I once owned go for incredible prices.

Back around '74 or '75, I was dickering with a California lady over her Berlinetta coupe. She wanted $13K. I should have just met her price and not worried. By around 1983 it was worth somewhere north of $250K to the collector crowd. Ah, well. I look back on things like a Winchester Model 1895 US cavalry saddle ring carbine in .30-'03 in NRA 90%, too. Lord knows what it would be worth, today. But, I was happy at the time with my profit...

Which merely says that the history of fiat money is always an eventual failure.

'Rat

[63dot]

Superman wears a Chuck Norris cape...

I refuse to watch the Barrett-Jackson auctions except once in a while. I see too many cars of the sorts I once owned go for incredible prices.

Back around '74 or '75, I was dickering with a California lady over her Berlinetta coupe. She wanted $13K. I should have just met her price and not worried. By around 1983 it was worth somewhere north of $250K to the collector crowd. Ah, well. I look back on things like a Winchester Model 1895 US cavalry saddle ring carbine in .30-'03 in NRA 90%, too. Lord knows what it would be worth, today. But, I was happy at the time with my profit...

Which merely says that the history of fiat money is always an eventual failure.

'Rat

I am a huge Civil War fan, and of the military stuff after the war. There are guns, uniforms, photos, letters, and many other things. But the most expensive thing I saw was worth tens of thousands, and it was a US Grant wooden Civil War toy. The cloth clothes on the figure looked all moth bitten and hardly hanging on the likeness of the general. I could not believe my ears or eyes, but like anything worth a ton of dough, it's because it is both rare and in incredible demand.

I am sorry to hear that you lost out on that rare Berlinetta.

I thought I knew Mustangs and Shelbys and the differences, but that Shelby had absolutely no physical difference than a regular early Mustang. What was different was on the inside on that particular prototype model. Of course, the later, more common Shelby took on Mustang like characteristics, but with certain appointments which distinguished it as slightly different.

[Desertrat]

:) Time wanders on, which beats having it quit on you. My first handgun was a Colt Woodsman, back in 1950. Same year, my father and uncle put me into the '06 business with an old DCM Enfield/Star Gauge barrel. My uncle ignored child labor laws to put me to work reloading for the both of us. :D Some years later, after booming around the world, I settled down--sorta. Did gunshow and coinshow tables for years. I just wish I could have afforded to have kept a lot of what passed through my hands. Same with cars; Porsches, Lotus Elan, Austin Healeys.

More than one Hertz rental Shelby Mustang was rented on Friday and returned on Monday with new bolt holes in the floor from a roll-bar installation--and sometimes a good story about why the sheet metal was bent. Not that I'd ever have done that, you understand.

A buddy of mine, a neighbor, raced Mustangs in SCCA's TransAm series, back when AJ, Parnelli, John Timanus and all that bunch of outlaws were in it. He had factory support from FoMoCo. To stay on-topic, he and his wife have CHLs. Me, I started out in dirt circle track in Paris, France, of all places, back in 1956. Still have my FIA license. Messed around in SCCA for twenty years before running off to play with IPSC in 1981. The "pre-race-gun" years.

Guns & Ironies: The advice given Ann Richards by her anti-gun advisors on the CHL issue led to her re-election loss to George Bush. His governorship led to his presidency. So, anti-gun people contributed mightily to his tenure.

'Rat

[yellow]

Fast forward nearly 1 year and we're making it happen.

Going to apply for our permits this week.

[jarjarblinks]

If I was a student in the US, will I qualify to purchase and own a 9mm calibration pistol - if I have no previous convictions for any sort of crime in my original country?

Or how about other self defense tools like pepper spray or TASER?

[themoonisdown09]

Fast forward nearly 1 year and we're making it happen.

Going to apply for our permits this week.

I've had a handgun for years now, but finally got my license to carry in January. I haven't carried the handgun around yet, and don't really plan on it any time soon, but I figured I might as well get one since it wasn't expensive.

[yellow]

If I was a student in the US, will I qualify to purchase and own a 9mm calibration pistol - if I have no previous convictions for any sort of crime in my original country?

It's not federal, it depends on where you live.

Or how about other self defense tools like pepper spray or TASER?

Not interested.

[iCheese]

If I was a student in the US, will I qualify to purchase and own a 9mm calibration pistol - if I have no previous convictions for any sort of crime in my original country?

Or how about other self defense tools like pepper spray or TASER?

read this, the link should bring you to the correct FAQ answer
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#r1

Fast forward nearly 1 year and we're making it happen.

Going to apply for our permits this week.

cool :) any ideas on what handguns interest you?

[yellow]

1. Sig Sauer P229
2. H&K USP
3. Springfield XD

I'll probably end up with #3, as it's the most economical for the quality.

[dmr727]

Buy the Sig! Buy the Sig! :)

::happy owner of a .40 P226R::

[iCheese]

I'd say buy a Glock, they aren't that much different in price. You could consider them more economical considering how much easier they are to work on, plus the ability to purchase replacement parts just about anywhere online. You can't do that with an XD :D

Seriously, XDs are good and will serve you well, but there are reasons I like other handguns better.

Most importantly, and you probably already know this, hold each handgun in person, and if at all possible, shoot them. See what works best for you.

[jarjarblinks]

I have very good reviews for Sig's, notably the P226. I used it extensively in a very dry climate at 3000 feet altitude with occasional rain, and I never encountered a single stoppage. The cocking action is very smooth in comparison to other makes, though I'ld say the recoil is definitely heavier. It will take some practice to get used the spring of the weapon. Some of the P226's come with customizable night sights, so at least if the luminous tip fails to glow after a few months of wear and tear, that'll come in handy still. I once had it trawled through a week of rain and dirt on the mountains and it still fired flawlessly, without any maintenance in between. That's how hardy it is. It spits out dirt and mud residue and remembers that it's meant for shooting bullets rather than stoppages.

I'ld recommend getting those with the wooden grips. For civilian use, its more practical as you wldnt be operating the weapon with Nomex gloves, hence there is added friction.

The downside to the P22's family is that they have a 15 round magazine, with 1 chambered, thats 16. Glock's have a 17 + 1, so that's some food for thought, though I doubt that that much artillery will ever come in handy for civilian protection.

Just my review. :)

[yellow]

For whatever reason I'm leaning away from 9mm and towards .40 or .45.
Can someone explain to me why?
I seriously don't know why I don't want 9mm, but I don't.

[Benguitar]

I've never owned a hand gun, being 16 years of age... :rolleyes:

Nor do I really want one..

[iCheese]

For whatever reason I'm leaning away from 9mm and towards .40 or .45.
Can someone explain to me why?
I seriously don't know why I don't want 9mm, but I don't.

I have a .40, and I love the caliber, but I honestly wouldn't have minded going with a 9mm either. .40 and .45 make bigger holes and produce a little bit more energy, but 9mm more than meets the minimum requirements created by the FBI.

You can shoot more for less with a 9mm.

Hell, get a .22 LR pistol also, shoot a ton for way less ;)

[SLC Flyfishing]

For whatever reason I'm leaning away from 9mm and towards .40 or .45.
Can someone explain to me why?
I seriously don't know why I don't want 9mm, but I don't.

It's said that 9mm is the minimum calibre for effective self defense. .40 is a good calibre to stop an attacker immediately, .45 is better. If you have to use your weapon and it's a 9mm, depending on the attackers size and other factors he may not go down immediately, you don't wand that to happen.

Even a non lethal hit with a .45 will usually knock a person from his feet, and incapacitate him.

There's a reason why police officers will generally carry .45 calibre weapons.

But for general shooting, a 9mm round is much more ecconomical.

If you don't plan on shooting your gun save it be in a self defense setting, .45 would be better, but if you see yourself shooting it for recreation, consider the 9mm.

I don't own any guns, and don't see my self wanting to, but my younger brother has a pair of 9mm guns and they are great fun to shoot!

SLC

[jarjarblinks]

.40's stop a person in the tracks. No doubt about it because it is flat headed and with 50% more projectile force, it can drop even a big guy with a single round.

I guess it really boils down to what purpose the weapon holds for you and in what context you're using it.

If you're even thinking of going for shooting competitions, the weapon will have to have a customizable make, ie. add on's etc.

If it's going to be for civilian protection, size of weapon for concealment, affordability of rounds, maintanence of weapon, ease of use of weapon. I doubt you will need to go into the science's of whether the round has BPV penetrability or is effective against Level II or Level III flak jackets.

That said, its best that you go into a gun shop and physically hold the gun. Cock it, aim it, load the magazine, feel it in your hand, cock the weapon, pull the trigger, try it with your non - master hand. Unlike law enforcement or military, you do not have the luxury of a harness or holster that allows for a pre - determined mode of release. I'ld say in civilian context comfortable engagement with either hand is equally important. You could be eating a burger the very moment the weapon is needed to be utilized.

That being said, I'ld recommend lead heads. Steel heads and copper heads will be much more expensive, and you do not need that level of penetration nor flight projectile. A 30m MER is more than sufficient.

[themoonisdown09]

I have a .40 caliber handgun. I keep it loaded with hollow points, but when I go to the firing range, I take those out and put in the cheap bullets.

[iCheese]

I don't own amy guns,


no offense, but that is pretty obvious.

there is no handgun or rifle round in the world that knocks someone to the ground. Laws of motion. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. if .45 ACP knocked bad guys to the ground with every shot, then the person with the handgun would have to be getting back up off his feet every time as well, more or less.

there is absolutely no magical caliber. People have been shot multiple times with .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, etc, and still continued to fight. Shot placement and penetration are what matters. You can achieve those two important requirements easily with 9mm

for what its worth, .40 S&W is the most widely used caliber by LE in the US these days, not .45 ACP.

[yellow]

Though the primary purpose is for protection, I do want to shoot enough to become (and remain) proficient with the weapon. Generally speaking, how much are we talking about $-wise for rounds? Certainly the more you buy, the cheaper it is.

I'm really thinking .40.

[SLC Flyfishing]

no offense, but that is pretty obvious.

there is no handgun or rifle round in the world that knocks someone to the ground. Laws of motion. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. if .45 ACP knocked bad guys to the ground with every shot, then the person with the handgun would have to be getting back up off his feet every time as well, more or less.

there is absolutely no magical caliber. People have been shot multiple times with .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, etc, and still continued to fight. Shot placement and penetration is what matters. You can achieve those two important requirements easily with 9mm

for what its worth, .40 S&W is the most widely used caliber by LE in the US these days, not .45 ACP.

Of course I'm not imagining a guy being thrown to the ground like in the movies. I'm saying that a .40 .44 or .45 will generally take even a large attacker down with a single hit. Not always, but generally. I know that there have been people who've been shot multiple times and continued to fight, but that's very much the exception.

And here in Salt Lake City, local law enforcement generally shoots .45, I got that information from my cousin and my sister's boyfriend, the cousin is a detective with Salt Lake county sherrif's department, the sister's boyfriend is in the academy.

It's ultimately up to the officer to choose, but they tell me that it's by far .45 that's most common.

SLC

[dmr727]

Generally speaking, how much are we talking about $-wise for rounds? Certainly the more you buy, the cheaper it is.

I'm really thinking .40.

100 rounds of .40 target ammo at Wal-Mart is about $22, last time I was there.

[iCheese]

Though the primary purpose is for protection, I do want to shoot enough to become (and remain) proficient with the weapon. Generally speaking, how much are we talking about $-wise for rounds? Certainly the more you buy, the cheaper it is.

I'm really thinking .40.

Sorry to say, but you are getting into the game pretty late. Ammo prices have skyrocketed, and it is really hard to find ammo these days, more so defense ammo than target ammo anyways. People are saying that ammunition prices are the current "bubble", that will hopefully burst sooner than later.

22-35 dollars per box of 50 premium hollowpoints, when you can find the 50 round boxes, otherwise its about 25-30 for the 20 round boxes of hollowpoints (don't ask right away, you will see eventually).

15-20 dollars about for 50 round boxes of target ammo for .40.

if you have a walmart in your area, thats the place to shop for target ammo, just be sure to go early. I have heard that lots of walmarts are cleared out of ammo every day, so go right when they open. otherwise, online websites are definitely the way to go.

[themoonisdown09]

100 rounds of .40 target ammo at Wal-Mart is about $22, last time I was there.

Yeah, that's about right. Hollow points are a lot more expensive. It's more like $30 for 20 rounds.